Appalling thread and way below what we’ve come to expect – not a single 80’s pop song reference in it. Sigh...
'Kin hell I give you orgies and Monty Python and people still complain
I need constant adoration or I'm quitting as Editor of Politicalbetting on Sunday or maybe I'll start doing threads exclusively on Scottish Independence and AV/Electoral reform.
ah TSE, you know we all love you! BTW Will nighthawk threads ever been returning?
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
In South Carolina Clinton still got almost as many votes in 2016 as Obama did in 2008 though.
'The Euro is far from the disaster it might superficially seem for the Germans, probably their biggest benefit of being in the EU tbh - a permanently undervalued currency.'
True but there is a cost to that as well, which is having to bail out the uncompetitive peripheral countries - and ultimately probably enter a fiscal union with them.
Plus a strong currency lowers costs of imported raw materials and would help industries who use them to export. Plus helping with inflation. A strong currency helps with buying other overseas companies - which would lead to further income flows. As I understand it a strong currency can help with govt funding costs. A strong currency (if we have one) makes us wealthier as individuals relative to the rest of the world.
Germany has had these benefits in the past. In the long term however there is no reason to assume that the vast continental wide benefits of scale of a single currency and market and labour force will not make the whole EZ better off. For all of that I do not see the UK in the Eurozone any time soon if ever and I would not vote to join. This is what the whole renegotiation process has been about. But that is not to recognise that the features of the EZ might well lead to greater prosperity for that zone in due course.
The Euro is a win-win for the Germans. Actually, for the Italians too ! It is good for any export-oriented country.
The Euro has been horrible for the Italians. Their economy hasn't grown since 2000.
The Euro was set to be great for Italy c. 1990 when it was a successful economy (for a year or two larger than the UK's!) but like when they tagged along with Germany in the 1930s, it's all ended badly...
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
HRC will be an excellent President. She will sweep Super Tuesday, then defeat the Trump. Looking nailed on now.
Trump will steamroll her in the debates. Hillary is the most uninspiring candidate the Dems have put forward since Gore.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The proportion of Dem voters that are African Americans was acahaly higher this time than in o8, 61% instead of 55% according to the exit pole,
Not certain if your 'Hillary is in massive trouble' is meant to be ironic, so apologies in advance if I have missed the Joke, but no I think she has the dem nomination at least in the bag.
Sad to hear the demise of two modern day British institutions...The Weatherspoons crap Sunday Lunch and the International Worthing Birdman. It does however motivate me to actually go and attend the bonkers Cheese Rolling before that gets canned.
Appalling thread and way below what we’ve come to expect – not a single 80’s pop song reference in it. Sigh...
'Kin hell I give you orgies and Monty Python and people still complain
I need constant adoration or I'm quitting as Editor of Politicalbetting on Sunday or maybe I'll start doing threads exclusively on Scottish Independence and AV/Electoral reform.
ah TSE, you know we all love you! BTW Will nighthawk threads ever been returning?
Nighthawks will but probably not until after the EURef.
It is a very exciting time politically because of the EURef/Presidential race, once things quieten down politically it should return.
Nighthawks was useful when things weren't so frenetic.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
HRC will be an excellent President. She will sweep Super Tuesday, then defeat the Trump. Looking nailed on now.
Trump will steamroll her in the debates. Hillary is the most uninspiring candidate the Dems have put forward since Gore.
Sad to hear the demise of two modern day British institutions...The Weatherspoons crap Sunday Lunch and the International Worthing Birdman. It does however motivate me to actually go and attend the bonkers Cheese Rolling before that gets canned.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
HRC will be an excellent President. She will sweep Super Tuesday, then defeat the Trump. Looking nailed on now.
Trump will steamroll her in the debates. Hillary is the most uninspiring candidate the Dems have put forward since Gore.
Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and but for Nader and some misplaced butterfly votes for Buchanan would have won Florida, the Electoral college and the presidency. HRC is the Democrats Nixon who also won on his second attempt
Sad to hear the demise of two modern day British institutions...The Weatherspoons crap Sunday Lunch and the International Worthing Birdman. It does however motivate me to actually go and attend the bonkers Cheese Rolling before that gets canned.
From the other chains we frequent on a Sunday it seems that serving a roast stops the kitchen from serving a complete menu. I can see why Whetherspoons want to stop it...
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
Trump's "talent" in debates will evaporate during general election. It won't be like Republican primaries where you can just throw red meat to an angry Republican base, who applaud torture, bigotry and being a dick to their hit list.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
Sad to hear the demise of two modern day British institutions...The Weatherspoons crap Sunday Lunch and the International Worthing Birdman. It does however motivate me to actually go and attend the bonkers Cheese Rolling before that gets canned.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
HRC will be an excellent President. She will sweep Super Tuesday, then defeat the Trump. Looking nailed on now.
Trump will steamroll her in the debates. Hillary is the most uninspiring candidate the Dems have put forward since Gore.
I think Trump will be a difficult debate opponent for her but the debates are not the campaign.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
I think I can answer that one as No it won't be obvious.
1 reason is because LEAVE can't make its mind up as to whether it wants EEA membership (or not) and then what the consequences of EEA membership actually is.
Personally while I'm undecided if the choice is EEA membership or EU membership I would go for the latter as at least we get some say some of the time...
And as for the 3 options it would be nice if Charlie had kept them in the same order...
Labour, unlike UKIP, are the official Opposition. The've made a net gain of one seat, in local elections. Even under IDS, the Tories were doing better in local elections than Labour are doing now.
It's going to be really tough for Labour to spin the election results in may, outside of the very good chance of gaining the London mayoralty. This cycle (council seats are elected on four year cycles, while not all councils elect the whole council every four years and stagger in thirds, councillor terms are four years.) was up in in 2012, the year of the omnishambles budget. The equivalent national share of vote in those elections was 38% labour, 31% Cons, 16% lib dems. The Cons never got above 31% until the General Election, and Labour never got higher (the result was repeated in 2013, lab 38 con 31).
I cant see how it wont end up being utterly appalling for Labour.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
HRC will be an excellent President. She will sweep Super Tuesday, then defeat the Trump. Looking nailed on now.
Trump will steamroll her in the debates. Hillary is the most uninspiring candidate the Dems have put forward since Gore.
I think Trump will be a difficult debate opponent for her but the debates are not the campaign.
Also the Democrats will actually start attacking Tramp with statements that work....
Sad to hear the demise of two modern day British institutions...The Weatherspoons crap Sunday Lunch and the International Worthing Birdman. It does however motivate me to actually go and attend the bonkers Cheese Rolling before that gets canned.
Reading that article I'm not sure what has left British civilization teetering on the edge of oblivion more: the EU or cancelling the roast.
First we had 'virtue signalling'. Now we have 'outrage' and 'fury'. Come back Colonel Blimp, all is forgiven. I look forward to a future where Millenials will be exploding with apoplexy at an incorrect use of a pronoun.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
If the people in HRC's camp has the same complacent view of voting demographics she is doomed. Trump will attack her from angles she is not used to defending and will aim to delegitimise her (very shaky) claim to be the champion of those groups.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Labour, unlike UKIP, are the official Opposition. The've made a net gain of one seat, in local elections. Even under IDS, the Tories were doing better in local elections than Labour are doing now.
Thanks Plato for https://t.co/ZNksaMn46J They could do with another column to show net gain (won - defended). Doing the sums since the GE that's
Tory: 59-56 = +3 (although up to Christmas that was +6, since it's -3 Labour: 49-48 = +1 LibDem: 20-19 = +1 UKIP: 2-8 = -6
Labour, unlike UKIP, are the official Opposition. The've made a net gain of one seat, in local elections. Even under IDS, the Tories were doing better in local elections than Labour are doing now.
It's going to be really tough for Labour to spin the election results in may, outside of the very good chance of gaining the London mayoralty. This cycle (council seats are elected on four year cycles, while not all councils elect the whole council every four years and stagger in thirds, councillor terms are four years.) was up in in 2012, the year of the omnishambles budget. The equivalent national share of vote in those elections was 38% labour, 31% Cons, 16% lib dems. The Cons never got above 31% until the General Election, and Labour never got higher (the result was repeated in 2013, lab 38 con 31).
I cant see how it wont end up being utterly appalling for Labour.
Normally I would agree whole heartedly with you. However having the elections in the middle of what for many Torys is a much more impotent battle over EU, I think will have divided and diverted the party away form its election wining potential. we will see, Scottish Conservatives, where the party is much less divided, may do very well, other areas less so.
Labour, unlike UKIP, are the official Opposition. The've made a net gain of one seat, in local elections. Even under IDS, the Tories were doing better in local elections than Labour are doing now.
It's going to be really tough for Labour to spin the election results in may, outside of the very good chance of gaining the London mayoralty. This cycle (council seats are elected on four year cycles, while not all councils elect the whole council every four years and stagger in thirds, councillor terms are four years.) was up in in 2012, the year of the omnishambles budget. The equivalent national share of vote in those elections was 38% labour, 31% Cons, 16% lib dems. The Cons never got above 31% until the General Election, and Labour never got higher (the result was repeated in 2013, lab 38 con 31).
I cant see how it wont end up being utterly appalling for Labour.
Normally I would agree whole heartedly with you. However having the elections in the middle of what for many Torys is a much more impotent battle over EU, I think will have divided and diverted the party away form its election wining potential. we will see, Scottish Conservatives, where the party is much less divided, may do very well, other areas less so.
I know it's a typo, but funny nevertheless: " much more impotent battle over EU"
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
Sanders could win Minnesota yes, though it is an open caucus which is difficult to predict, Oklahoma will likely go to Hillary. I doubt he drops out after Tuesday, especially if he wins a few states and he will likely win at least Maine on March 6th. The GOP battle is also likely to go a while, especially if Cruz wins Texas and he and Rubio win a couple of other states, so he can argue with the GOP still battling it out he is not damaging the Dems by continuing the fight on their side as well
Listening to Bill Cash on Sky was an unnerving experience. He went into a repetitive dialogue on whether or not the agreement David Cameron achieved was irreversible or not and agreed that there had been a spat with Hammond. He really turned me off as he is talking entirely to the Westminster village on technical detail that no ordinary voter would understand or listen to. The leavers have always said that whatever DC brought back would be insufficient so why spend all this energy on trying to prove it was or wasn't important. Leave have to start talking the language of the ordinary voter and explain simply how they get a trade deal with the EU that doesn't include free movement of labour. Ian Duncan Smith failed on Marr this am and now Bill Cash has just switched lots of people off.
Appalling thread and way below what we’ve come to expect – not a single 80’s pop song reference in it. Sigh...
'Kin hell I give you orgies and Monty Python and people still complain
I need constant adoration or I'm quitting as Editor of Politicalbetting on Sunday or maybe I'll start doing threads exclusively on Scottish Independence and AV/Electoral reform.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
It's unlikely to be so simple. I expect some 'unexpected' celebrity endorsements for Trump from members of those demographic groups. Trump's whole campaign so far has been built on slaughtering the sacred cows of American politics. One of the biggest is racially determined voting patterns. There is no way Hillary will be able to bank those votes without having to answer some very uncomfortable questions to justify why she deserves support.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fa
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
If the people in HRC's camp has the same complacent view of voting demographics she is doomed. Trump will attack her from angles she is not used to defending and will aim to delegitimise her (very shaky) claim to be the champion of those groups.
It is not complacency it is a statement of the obvious and of course the Clinton campaign cannot rely on blacks and Hispanics turning out, she still has to motivate them. It will certainly be easy for her to deligitimise Trump further with Hispanics given his statements comparing them to criminals and rapists and his shocking negatives with that demographic. It is a far more effective strategy for her to drive up minority turnout for her campaign in November than to divert resources trying to persuade white working class voters to vote for her when they will likely still vote for Trump anyway and she can win without them.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
If we leave EU I think we will end all free movement but we will likely create new visa classes to deal with shortages. I can imagine a special medical visa for doctors and nurses that is low admin.
One thing I never understand is why we don't make all medical qualifications loan based with a pay off for those working in NHS for 15 years. How many dentists train on taxpayers funding and then go into private practice.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Sanders will likely win Massachusetts and Colorado too. There are almost no liberal Democrats who are going to stop voting for Sanders to vote for Donald Trump, there is no overlap between them
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
I politely disagree with your analysis, Trump, is still very much an unknown, He has beaten almost everybody's predictions about him so far, but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
Do you have a source on claim that most EU nations do not have a deficit with EU? I think it is untrue. Also, all EU nations, especially Eurozone nations, do not want Germany getting a big economic hit. And if Spain got one, debt crisis would start again.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Sanders will likely win Massachusetts and Colorado too. There are almost no liberal Democrats who are going to stop voting for Sanders to vote for Donald Trump, there is no overlap between them
Those who are voting Sanders for change might, the only common thing between Sanders and Trump (apart from healthcare and foreign policy) is that they are change candidates, Trump having lax social views makes it easier.
I doubt that Sanders will win Massachusetts or Colorado, his supporters are demoralized and will probably abstain.
If we leave EU I think we will end all free movement but we will likely create new visa classes to deal with shortages. I can imagine a special medical visa for doctors and nurses that is low admin.
One thing I never understand is why we don't make all medical qualifications loan based with a pay off for those working in NHS for 15 years. How many dentists train on taxpayers funding and then go into private practice.
Quite. It costs around £750,000 to the taxpayer for training a doctor to the stage they can be a GP, a Consultant etc. Golden Handcuffs dont seem unreasonable.
Yes, we have a global market, and newly qualified doctors eyes blink at the sums offered in different areas of the world, but in some cases, thats because their medical school graduates are carrying around $250,000k of student loan debts.
It is ridiculous to suggest that we only have labour "shortages" in the highly skilled professions. The acutest labour shortages are likely actually in the unskilled labour market. Go into any fast food restaurant in London and 90% of the staff are from abroad. To suggest that this is simply a consequence of foreigners undercutting British workers is silly. The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
I politely disagree with your analysis, Trump, is still very much an unknown, He has beaten almost everybody's predictions about him so far, but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
One thing is for sure, it'll NEVER be Gary Johnson's year
I need a little educating on this. I thought in some Primaries and caucuses registered Independents could participate as well as registered voters for either the Republicans or Democrats.
Inevitably, given the media interest and extraordinary nature of the races this year, there has been more engagement about the GOP contest and I'm not surprised to see the larger voting numbers whereas the 2016 Dem contest lacks the excitement of 2008 so again not surprising to see lower numbers.
The question then becomes how many of those who took part in the GOP primary were confirmed GOP voters and how many of those NOT voting for Trump in the primary would vote for him in the General Election.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Well the only explanation as to why Trump is doing so well in the polls, relative to expectations, with hispanics is the Latin American dictator appeal he has.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
As I said Trump has a comfortable lead over HRC amongst whites, though on those polls is actually doing slightly less than Romney. Hillary has a clear lead over Trump with Hispanics and an overwhelming lead over Trump with blacks, although her total inevitably is slightly less than Obama with the black vote.
Overall the national vote between Hillary and Trump is neck and neck.
Fox has HRC leading Trump by 5% so is a bit of an outlier.
It is ridiculous to suggest that we only have labour "shortages" in the highly skilled professions. The acutest labour shortages are likely actually in the unskilled labour market. Go into any fast food restaurant in London and 90% of the staff are from abroad. To suggest that this is simply a consequence of foreigners undercutting British workers is silly. The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
Or immigrant labour has depressed the wages so low that its only attractive to people who are used to lower standard of living, and willing to live eight to a room on the floor above the restaurant ?
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
I need a little educating on this. I thought in some Primaries and caucuses registered Independents could participate as well as registered voters for either the Republicans or Democrats.
Inevitably, given the media interest and extraordinary nature of the races this year, there has been more engagement about the GOP contest and I'm not surprised to see the larger voting numbers whereas the 2016 Dem contest lacks the excitement of 2008 so again not surprising to see lower numbers.
The question then becomes how many of those who took part in the GOP primary were confirmed GOP voters and how many of those NOT voting for Trump in the primary would vote for him in the General Election.
It's a long term problem for democrats at least in mid term primaries (Congress):
Since 1994 Democrats have a difficult time in congressional elections, and since 1994 primary turnout between republicans and democrats has been close. Call it a warning light.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you ar
HRC has the Hispanic vote, as last night showed she will have the Black vote and she will have the votes of many white women that gives her at least 45-48%, Trump has the white working class and white males which probably gives him around 45-48% too. Trump v Clinton will go to the wire
I politely disagree with your analysis, Trump, is still very much an unknown, He has beaten almost everybody's predictions about him so far, but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
I politely disagree too, after 8 years of one party in the White House the general election is normally close, 2008 was the exception and was itself neck and neck until Lehmans went down. In 2000 the loser actually won the popular vote by almost 1%, in 1976 Carter beat Ford by just 2%, in 1968 Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1%, in 1960 JFK beat Nixon by less than 1% etc. Bloomberg or Johnson would take 10% at best and would make little difference to the margin between the main candidates, in 1968 for example Wallace got 13%
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Sanders will likely win Massachusetts and Colorado too. There are almost no liberal Democrats who are going to stop voting for Sanders to vote for Donald Trump, there is no overlap between them
Those who are voting Sanders for change might, the only common thing between Sanders and Trump (apart from healthcare and foreign policy) is that they are change candidates, Trump having lax social views makes it easier.
I doubt that Sanders will win Massachusetts or Colorado, his supporters are demoralized and will probably abstain.
I don't see Sanders voters as demoralised at all, he won New Hampshire comfortably after all and while HRC should win overall there is still a long way to go yet, even if they were they would stay home, not vote for Trump
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
No, the exit poll company later admitted the actual figure was more like 40%. Of course Bush and Rove had ginned up a massive housing bubble through promoting subprime mortgages to minorities, that ended up collapsing the world's financial system, to get to that number.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
As I said Trump has a comfortable lead over HRC amongst whites, though on those polls is actually doing slightly less than Romney. Hillary has a clear lead over Trump with Hispanics and an overwhelming lead over Trump with blacks, although her total inevitably is slightly less than Obama with the black vote.
Overall the national vote between Hillary and Trump is neck and neck.
Fox has HRC leading Trump by 5% so is a bit of an outlier.
I never use Fox News polls or Rasmussen polls in any polling average, their partisanship makes them highly suspect.
It is ridiculous to suggest that we only have labour "shortages" in the highly skilled professions. The acutest labour shortages are likely actually in the unskilled labour market. Go into any fast food restaurant in London and 90% of the staff are from abroad. To suggest that this is simply a consequence of foreigners undercutting British workers is silly. The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
Or immigrant labour has depressed the wages so low that its only attractive to people who are used to lower standard of living, and willing to live eight to a room on the floor above the restaurant ?
McDonalds are housing people eight to a room above their restaurants? You should send that to the newspapers! These are the sort of jobs that are attractive to a very specific demographic - usually young people who see it as a stepping stone until they can pursue a more rewarding career. Nobody wants to be working on the front-line of a fast food restaurant for decades. Understandably they are very attractive to migrants. But these are not slave labour employers.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60% of the white vote Hillary could still win if she gets close to the 93% of the black vote Obama won (which was why her strong performance with blacks in South Carolina last night was so important to her) and matches if not increases the 71% of the Hispanic vote Obama won (Trump as her opponent is her best chance of doing so, Hispanics loathe him) http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Well the only explanation as to why Trump is doing so well in the polls, relative to expectations, with hispanics is the Latin American dictator appeal he has.
Or legal Hispanic migrants are as pissed of with illegal immigrants undercutting their wages as whites.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
If SCOTUS is live then Trump can't shift to the centre. The candidates will have to talk about who they will nominate and Trump gong for anyone other than the reddest of red meat eaters will be a betrayal of the Republican base.
No, the exit poll company later admitted the actual figure was more like 40%. Of course Bush and Rove had ginned up a massive housing bubble through promoting subprime mortgages to minorities, that ended up collapsing the world's financial system, to get to that number.
Subprime mortgages trace back to Clinton although they blew up on Bush's watch.
This video of him speaking at CND has an official join labour thing at the end. Is unilateralism now the official policy of the Labour Party?
Interesting. That's probably the most 'get-up-and-go' speech Corbyn has given since he became leader. I suppose it's because he's amongst his own people and can finally enjoy himself. The sentiments he expressed though were a bit weaselling: he was only spelling out the need for multilateralism, whose proponents in the 1980s CND condemned as CIA stooges.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Sanders will likely win Massachusetts and Colorado too. There are almost no liberal Democrats who are going to stop voting for Sanders to vote for Donald Trump, there is no overlap between them
Those who are voting Sanders for change might, the only common thing between Sanders and Trump (apart from healthcare and foreign policy) is that they are change candidates, Trump having lax social views makes it easier.
I doubt that Sanders will win Massachusetts or Colorado, his supporters are demoralized and will probably abstain.
I don't see Sanders voters as demoralised at all, he won New Hampshire comfortably after all and while HRC should win overall there is still a long way to go yet, even if they were they would stay home, not vote for Trump
Don't be naïve. Sanders had lost before the whole thing started. However, his candidacy still is a good thing for reminding Americans how corrupt their country is.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
You could easily sort out something on retirement, although would probably need reciprocal arrangements on healthcare etc. I was focusing on people of working age who would be part of a trade agreement.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
Even settled Hispanics will note the racist overtone in "building the wall". 20% will be about right. There are 20% idiots in very community.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
If SCOTUS is live then Trump can't shift to the centre. The candidates will have to talk about who they will nominate and Trump gong for anyone other than the reddest of red meat eaters will be a betrayal of the Republican base.
How many people put the Supreme Court as their priority in their everyday lives? Only the professional political class.
Those people are 100% behind Hillary and 0% behind Trump already, though the republican professional political class will be forced to think again about not supporting Trump against Hillary.
So the supreme court plays more in favour of Trump in limiting the opposition to him by the establishment in the GE.
So with 2/3 of the Irish seats allocated, we have four main blocs - Fine Gael (currently 31), Fianna Fail (currently 30), Sinn Fein (currently 14) and Independents (12).
Clearly, FF and FG would command a majority in the Dail but history and political culture mitigates against these two parties wortking together as much as it would Conservative and Labour over here. I'm pushed to see the ideological distinction between FF and FG in all honesty though I've always thought FG the urban party and FF the rural party.
With SF unwilling to be involved in any coalition, FF and FG are going to have to try to cobble something together with the Independents and the "others" and it may be that on their own neither FF nor FG will be able to create a majority government.
The options are therefore two it would seem:
1) An FG/FF Grand Coalition. It would be strange to see Enda Kenny remain as Taoiseach given the battering FG has received in terms of seats and votes.
2) Either FF or FG persuades SF to join the Government. Listening to Adams this morning, I think he's hoping for SF to be the main opposition Party facing a fractious FF/FG government so the idea of him throwing in SF's lot with either seems unlikely.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
My understanding is that most Brits who move to the Continent are not looking for work but retiring and would therefore not be affected by what Charles is suggesting.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
Sanders could win Minnesota yes, though it is an open caucus which is difficult to predict, Oklahoma will likely go to Hillary. I doubt he drops out after Tuesday, especially if he wins a few states and he will likely win at least Maine on March 6th. The GOP battle is also likely to go a while, especially if Cruz wins Texas and he and Rubio win a couple of other states, so he can argue with the GOP still battling it out he is not damaging the Dems by continuing the fight on their side as well
When it comes to winner-takes-all in the Republican primaries, if Cruz and Rubio are still in the race, then Trump's victory is assured. One of these two has to go out before that happens.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party) What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
. Hillary is in massive trouble.
free.
I think you ar
wire
I politely disagree with your analysis, Trump, is still very much an unknown, He has beaten almost everybody's predictions about him so far, but still has a big load of vanrabilatys, that could be devastating. this could be the year of the 3rd party, whether that's Bloomberg, or perhaps the libertarian Gary Johnson. I don't know, how this will play out, but the odds of it being a 49% vs 51% down to the last few days, are much smaller, IMHO, than it terns in to a comfortable or 'blow out' win for one side or the other.
I politely disagree too, after 8 years of one party in the White House the general election is normally close, 2008 was the exception and was itself neck and neck until Lehmans went down. In 2000 the loser actually won the popular vote by almost 1%, in 1976 Carter beat Ford by just 2%, in 1968 Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1%, in 1960 JFK beat Nixon by less than 1% etc. Bloomberg or Johnson would take 10% at best and would make little difference to the margin between the main candidates, in 1968 for example Wallace got 13%
OK, interesting, there are some good examples, it seems that more elections have been close than I realised, but I think Trump is less like the examples you have given above, he has similtaniasly, alienated some republicans, and attracted some democrats, much more so than normal. I think he will ether tern out (electorally) to be a Goldwater or a Ragan, I'm just not shore which.
When Ross Paero, stood in 1992, he got 19% which If I recall was about 2 Republicans to every Democrat, Bloomberg could take a similar ratio from the democrats, Johnson from the Republicans, they may even cancel each other out! but I think more likely one will be much bigger than the other.
One other think that may be interesting is how Trump gets on in a 'One on One' debate (assuming that nether Johnson or Bloomberg get in the debates) I think his style has worked well in multie person debates, because he always comes out with the most memorisable lines, thus leading everybody watching to forget who else was even on the stage! but I think that this style may play less well if it is just 2 people.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican e?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
Even settled Hispanics will note the racist overtone in "building the wall". 20% will be about right. There are 20% idiots in very community.
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
blue states vs Bernie.
Democrats regard is as totem of faith that voting Nader let in Bush. Clinton will bring home all the liberals, win massive landslides with blacks, latinos and young women, and probably win white graduates. Trump will be left with having to win 80%+ with blue collar whites, which he won't.
Indeed, Romney won 59% of the white vote in 2012, Obama only 39%, yet Obama won overall 51% to 48%. Even if Trump won over 60
Lets have the 3 latest non Fox News national polls:
Theres no way Trump will get a third of Hispanic vote. Polls are close to meaningless at this point anyway.
Trump is only getting 17% of the Hispanic vote with Quinnipiac, Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, George W Bush 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004
No, the exit poll company later admitted the actual figure was more like 40%. Of course Bush and Rove had ginned up a massive housing bubble through promoting subprime mortgages to minorities, that ended up collapsing the world's financial system, to get to that number.
40%, so even on your figures comfortably more than Trump is getting and almost double the share Romney got in 2012.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
I doubt it that Sanders will win now any state but Vermont, his voters seem to have given up and abstaining.
But the fun is on the GOP side right now. At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
Sanders will likely win Massachusetts and Colorado too. There are almost no liberal Democrats who are going to stop voting for Sanders to vote for Donald Trump, there is no overlap between them
Those who are voting Sanders for change might, the only common thing between Sanders and Trump (apart from healthcare and foreign policy) is that they are change candidates, Trump having lax social views makes it easier.
I doubt that Sanders will win Massachusetts or Colorado, his supporters are demoralized and will probably abstain.
I don't see Sanders voters as demoralised at all, he won New Hampshire comfortably after all and while HRC should win overall there is still a long way to go yet, even if they were they would stay home, not vote for Trump
Don't be naïve. Sanders had lost before the whole thing started. However, his candidacy still is a good thing for reminding Americans how corrupt their country is.
Had Sanders won Iowa and Nevada he would now be frontrunner, though winning New Hampshire at least kept him in the race
The reason British people aren't in these jobs is because either they don't want them and/or the number of jobs dwarfs the number of British people who could fill them.
They need to get over their taste for luxury. Earning money to pay the bills comes first, enjoying the job comes second.
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".
Tern Out in South Carolina Primary 2016 vs 2008 (i.e. when there was a contested primary for each party)
Year Democrat Republican
2008 532,468 445,677
2016 368,291 740,881
To me that's a fairly dramatic change, and similar things have happened in the 3 other states that have voted so far. some of it will be particular candidates that attract extra people to the poles, but it may also have a underling trend, after 8 years of Bush, Democrats where more fired up, now it is republicans.
What do PBs think is contributing to the change?
Trump and Obama.
Massive difference in turnout from black people in '08 for Obama and an uninspiring bunch from the GOP.
Hillary is winning in solid red territory and Bernie is winning in blue states. Hillary is in massive trouble.
The Supreme Court situation changes the general election complexion entirely. If SCOTUS is live come November then hilary gets all those Sanders voters for free.
I think you are making far too much of the SCOTUS situation that it is worth. Even if it is live by then it won't shift many votes that she wouldn't already get. A few liberals might be enthused to go and vote, but if Trump moves to the centre and goes down the Reagan route then she will struggle badly. She doesn't have enough support from the Obama coalition and she doesn't have her own power base to add to it. It's why she is having such a tough time in blue states vs Bernie.
If SCOTUS is live then Trump can't shift to the centre. The candidates will have to talk about who they will nominate and Trump gong for anyone other than the reddest of red meat eaters will be a betrayal of the Republican base.
How many people put the Supreme Court as their priority in their everyday lives? Only the professional political class.
Those people are 100% behind Hillary and 0% behind Trump already, though the republican professional political class will be forced to think again about not supporting Trump against Hillary.
So the supreme court plays more in favour of Trump in limiting the opposition to him by the establishment in the GE.
It gets Hilary Sanders voters who would have otherwise sat on their hands because Democrat voters are stupid and would otherwise have thought they were sending 'the system' a message by not voting.
Sanders may also pick up Minnesota, he is putting time and money in to that state, the demographics look better, and the last pole, there was a month ago. but even if he wins that, (and just possible Oklahoma) where does it leave him? He is behind in overall opinion poles, behind in delegates, behind in cash, and the calendar does not look good for him.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
Sanders could win Minnesota yes, though it is an open caucus which is difficult to predict, Oklahoma will likely go to Hillary. I doubt he drops out after Tuesday, especially if he wins a few states and he will likely win at least Maine on March 6th. The GOP battle is also likely to go a while, especially if Cruz wins Texas and he and Rubio win a couple of other states, so he can argue with the GOP still battling it out he is not damaging the Dems by continuing the fight on their side as well
When it comes to winner-takes-all in the Republican primaries, if Cruz and Rubio are still in the race, then Trump's victory is assured. One of these two has to go out before that happens.
I totally disagree! there are some (8) Winner takes all and there are some staes that vote praporshanatly, but there also a lot (17, I think) that vote praporshanatly, unless somebody gets 50% +1 Vote, if it becomes a 2 horse race, than Trump will no doubt win some of these with over 50 % of the vote, and thus all the delegates, which will comftably take him over the 50% of all delegates, but if Rubio, and Cruz (and the other 2) stay in and can between them selves get over 50 of the vote, Trump may still win, but is possible that with supper delegates, Trump can be taken out at the Convention.
I asked @flightpath a detailed question on what he meant by "freedom of labour" on the end of the last thread.
On blackberry so can't easily repost. Would be obliged if someone would.
After all, we must give him a fair chance to answer, mustn't we? Wouldn't want to unfairly acuse him of not having an answer.
Charles, you are obviously knowledgeable on the subject and I was interested in your comments because I am trying to make an informed decision in the ref. I take your word on the 3 options and understand it is not a black/white issue.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
As it would have been with an independent Scotland, it will be a negotiation.
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
Under your plans Brits without a job offer would no longer be able to move to the EU. That's most of those who do so currently.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
My understanding is that most Brits who move to the Continent are not looking for work but retiring and would therefore not be affected by what Charles is suggesting.
Indeed and many countries have special classes of visa already to attract non-EU retires, so that would not cause any problems. Someone with a pension to spend in your economy, that won't be dependant on the state, or take a job from a local, what is not to like.
Comments
GOP
Trump - Total 7.
Alabama
Georgia
Massachusetts
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Cruz - Total 5.
Alaska
Arkansas
North Dakota
Texas
Wyoming
Rubio - Total 2.
Colorado
Minnesota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
BTW Will nighthawk threads ever been returning?
Clinton - Total 9.
Alabama
American Samoa
Arkansas
Georgia
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Sanders - Total 3.
Colorado
Massachusetts
Vermont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
Not certain if your 'Hillary is in massive trouble' is meant to be ironic, so apologies in advance if I have missed the Joke, but no I think she has the dem nomination at least in the bag.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3467379/Sacrilege-Wetherspoons-sparks-fury-secret-plans-kill-traditional-Sunday-roast.html
Reading that article I'm not sure what has left British civilization teetering on the edge of oblivion more: the EU or cancelling the roast.
It is a very exciting time politically because of the EURef/Presidential race, once things quieten down politically it should return.
Nighthawks was useful when things weren't so frenetic.
Genuine question, are we likely to know the consequences of BREXIT on free trade/ free movement of labour by JUNE 23rd or are we going to be asked to vote on the basis of this could happen or that could happen.?
https://twitter.com/paulisci/status/703765555719704577
Later.
1 reason is because LEAVE can't make its mind up as to whether it wants EEA membership (or not) and then what the consequences of EEA membership actually is.
Personally while I'm undecided if the choice is EEA membership or EU membership I would go for the latter as at least we get some say some of the time...
And as for the 3 options it would be nice if Charlie had kept them in the same order...
I cant see how it wont end up being utterly appalling for Labour.
The question is does he drop out after Tuesday? allowing the party to gather around Hillary, and letting her have the time, to raise cash, and criticise Trump (or who ever)
The rational conclusion will a free trade agreement, probably including the right to move to the UK without a work permit in response to a confirmed job offer. I doubt that it will include the right to move to the UK to look for work (and I don't think that the UK should accept those). It would be extraordinary if the EU were to insist on any such job seekers being eligible for benefits. (ie. 1+2+3).
In my personal view, it is (ii) that causes most of the pressure on wages for UK members of the WWC (e.g. qualified plumbers, electricians, who are out-priced by Eastern Europeans). But if the NHS wants to hire a qualified doctor from Germany or Greece then they should be able to do so & have them move here without the administrative burden.
But you can't completely exclude the fact that the EU (or the UK) will be irrational "pour les encourages les autres". I doubt it, but you can't exclude it.
http://bfy.tw/4Ubw
http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VtLrw_mLTIU
But the fun is on the GOP side right now.
At the extremes some of them may vote Trump in the republican primary for change and as a reaction to how Sanders was treated by the african american community.
They could do with another column to show net gain (won - defended). Doing the sums since the GE that's
Tory: 59-56 = +3 (although up to Christmas that was +6, since it's -3
Labour: 49-48 = +1
LibDem: 20-19 = +1
UKIP: 2-8 = -6
" much more impotent battle over EU"
Frank Kelly, the actor who played Father Jack, has died. The Grim Reaper can do one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyIntYGBOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdkN57xvekI
It looks like Rubio's best chance of getting a state and didn't follow the GOP trend with Romney either.
What incentive do countries within the EU that do not have a trade deficit with the UK - ie, most of them - have to agree a deal that leaves their citizens in a worst position than they are now? Which of the freedoms that we enjoy now, in addition to the free movement of people, will you be prepared to give up in order to restrict free movement of people?
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/2_17_2016_tables.pdf
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=75899aa5-d534-4f73-a00d-5d84f2274ed3
Whites
Trump 53 ,51, 53
Hillary 40, 35, 40
Hispanics
Trump 37, 17, 34
Hillary 41, 67, 62
Blacks
Trump 7, 12, 12
Hillary 84, 83, 78
Total
Trump 45, 43, 45
Hillary 43, 44, 48
One thing I never understand is why we don't make all medical qualifications loan based with a pay off for those working in NHS for 15 years. How many dentists train on taxpayers funding and then go into private practice.
https://twitter.com/jasongorman/status/703922322659549184
This video of him speaking at CND has an official join labour thing at the end. Is unilateralism now the official policy of the Labour Party?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35680675
One of the top news stories today.
I doubt that Sanders will win Massachusetts or Colorado, his supporters are demoralized and will probably abstain.
Yes, we have a global market, and newly qualified doctors eyes blink at the sums offered in different areas of the world, but in some cases, thats because their medical school graduates are carrying around $250,000k of student loan debts.
Inevitably, given the media interest and extraordinary nature of the races this year, there has been more engagement about the GOP contest and I'm not surprised to see the larger voting numbers whereas the 2016 Dem contest lacks the excitement of 2008 so again not surprising to see lower numbers.
The question then becomes how many of those who took part in the GOP primary were confirmed GOP voters and how many of those NOT voting for Trump in the primary would vote for him in the General Election.
Overall the national vote between Hillary and Trump is neck and neck.
Fox has HRC leading Trump by 5% so is a bit of an outlier.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/primary-voter-turnout-stays-low-but-more-so-for-democrats/?_r=1
Since 1994 Democrats have a difficult time in congressional elections, and since 1994 primary turnout between republicans and democrats has been close.
Call it a warning light.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of people of working age (excludiong students studying abroad) who move to the EU do so without a job offer - perhaps you have data to back that up?
On giving up other freedoms it would be part of a negotiated trade package. Either we like the overall deal or we don't. But, in my view, both sides will want a deal and so something sensible will be agreed. As for everyone agreeing, these things are centralised in the EU, so there will be a common position and the decision will be taken on what is best for the EU, not what is best for an individual country.
Only the professional political class.
Those people are 100% behind Hillary and 0% behind Trump already, though the republican professional political class will be forced to think again about not supporting Trump against Hillary.
So the supreme court plays more in favour of Trump in limiting the opposition to him by the establishment in the GE.
Clearly, FF and FG would command a majority in the Dail but history and political culture mitigates against these two parties wortking together as much as it would Conservative and Labour over here. I'm pushed to see the ideological distinction between FF and FG in all honesty though I've always thought FG the urban party and FF the rural party.
With SF unwilling to be involved in any coalition, FF and FG are going to have to try to cobble something together with the Independents and the "others" and it may be that on their own neither FF nor FG will be able to create a majority government.
The options are therefore two it would seem:
1) An FG/FF Grand Coalition. It would be strange to see Enda Kenny remain as Taoiseach given the battering FG has received in terms of seats and votes.
2) Either FF or FG persuades SF to join the Government. Listening to Adams this morning, I think he's hoping for SF to be the main opposition Party facing a fractious FF/FG government so the idea of him throwing in SF's lot with either seems unlikely.
When Ross Paero, stood in 1992, he got 19% which If I recall was about 2 Republicans to every Democrat, Bloomberg could take a similar ratio from the democrats, Johnson from the Republicans, they may even cancel each other out! but I think more likely one will be much bigger than the other.
One other think that may be interesting is how Trump gets on in a 'One on One' debate (assuming that nether Johnson or Bloomberg get in the debates) I think his style has worked well in multie person debates, because he always comes out with the most memorisable lines, thus leading everybody watching to forget who else was even on the stage! but I think that this style may play less well if it is just 2 people.
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1984/
Half the problem is we sold a lot of people the idea of a university education, when their abilities would have been far more suited to a vocation or trade, we then discovered that because of this they could not really handly a degree at the level universities were used to setting, so because there was government money in it, universities opened to cater to less able students, and unsurprisingly resulted in very poorly thought of degrees.
As a result we have a lot of people that should be following a trade, who would not dream of doing so because the are a graduate and should have a graduate job. At the same time the employers look askance at these students and their unprepossessing degrees. No helped by a significant proportion of today's prospective employees being aghast at having to shave and dress tidily for work (something to do with 'uman rights), having to turn up on time, or do a full days work.
We have produced a generation (to paraphrase Top Gun), "whose egos are writing cheques their brain can't cash".