Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.
Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?
According to Frontloader there are:
11 At large delegates 7 PLEO delagates 35 District 7 super delegates
Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.
I don't disagree with you, isam. I just doubt the victims of these things would be in any better position, even if FOBT's were banned altogether. Anyone with even the cheapest android smartphone and a debit card now has a FOBT in their pocket.
The problem is ultimately one of compulsion, addiction and personal control. The solution is education, compassion, support and sometimes, medical intervention.
Possibly... I suppose I think what would the bookies least like and then do that!
Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.
The PM is not treating voters as children.
The normal criticism is that he's too arrogant. Now he's being accused of not being arrogant enough.
Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.
I wonder how angry a dead cat attack Fallon would muster if Labour defended a pledge of a referendum on Trident in the terms that some are defending Cameron's decision to enable a referendum on EU membership.
Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.
Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?
According to Frontloader there are:
11 At large delegates 7 PLEO delagates 35 District 7 super delegates
Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.
A. Neill "You would risk all that and soddom & gomorrah..." "EFTA Secretariat has 9% of EU laws adopted by Norway so where does the 75% claim from the FO come from?"
Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero Nurse please save Matt Hancock.
If only Andrew Neil was the main interviewer for the BBC.
Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.
The PM is not treating voters as children.
The normal criticism is that he's too arrogant. Now he's being accused of not being arrogant enough.
Politics is hilarious!
He kind of is, though. It's like giving a child a razorblade sandwich and then berating them about how horrendously risky and stupid it would be to even contemplate eating it. You're either lying about the razorblades, or you've done something terrible by offering it.
Mr. Nabavi, I'm not attacking Cameron for being too arrogant/not arrogant enough. I'm attacking him for being full of shit. That was perfectly clear in my post.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
I'm quite happy for there to be a referendum, as I don't believe that the predictions of doom and disaster amount to a hill of beans.
Fair enough, there's a disagreement on that. Cameron is doing exactly what he said he would, giving people the choice, and arguing his case. Good for him, on both counts.
Leaving the eu on Farage's terms eg no memebership of eea, or indeed anything' would be bad. Also the anti black muslim foreigner tide unleashed by Farage and his BNPlite would be bad. We have the referendum based on the need to protect us from the ez. I am happy with that. Both sides do not want to remind us that simply being in the eea would leave us not much different to now.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.
A. Neill "You would risk all that and soddom & gomorrah..." "EFTA Secretariat has 9% of EU laws adopted by Norway so where does the 75% claim from the FO come from?"
Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero Nurse please save Matt Hancock.
Hancock's half-hour of fame has come to grief. We won't be seeing that clown again.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
Would have thought that would be easier if a conventional conservative like Cruz lost. They'll blame Trump losing on him not being conservative enough!!
Mr. Nabavi, I'm not attacking Cameron for being too arrogant/not arrogant enough. I'm attacking him for being full of shit. That was perfectly clear in my post.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
John "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain didn't challenge any of the sacred cows of the modern GOP.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
The conservatives' reply to that would be that it was tried in 2012 and failed - though in reality, Romney messed up a winnable election himself; it wasn't his positioning that cost him the election, it was his campaigning.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.
I'm not so sure there's any more mileage in losing audaciously or shamelessly.
When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
Mr. Nabavi, I'm not attacking Cameron for being too arrogant/not arrogant enough. I'm attacking him for being full of shit. That was perfectly clear in my post.
Hmm. Cameron turning the referendum into a 4-month long lie-a-thon certainly has its drawbacks:
1) The party base is further alienated with each whopper 2) Big risk of becoming a laughing stock outside the party
Conclusion: Cameron (and those associated closely with him like Osborne are finished as a political force if they keep this up, regardless of the referendum result. If Cameron clings to office afterwards, then getting legislation through will become very difficult ...eg the reduction in seats to 600.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
The conservatives' reply to that would be that it was tried in 2012 and failed - though in reality, Romney messed up a winnable election himself; it wasn't his positioning that cost him the election, it was his campaigning.
Leaving aside questions of electability, Trump would certainly not be the first choice of conservatives in policy terms. On most issues, he's to the left of them.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
Perhaps they could try a platform of economic populism and reducing immigration; maybe find someone high-profile from outside the political establishment to front it... He'd need to be someone pretty outspoken to be able to convince voters he wasn't just a puppet.
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
We were all part of the single market, so it did not matter. Two years after Article 50 is invoked the UK won' be, unless all sides agree an extension. In which case we will still be an EU member state.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.
I'm not so sure there's any more mileage in losing audaciously or shamelessly.
When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
I doubt the answer is to be found with someone who thinks Minnesota is a target state for Republicans.
If Trump manages to purge the Republican Party of the neocons they will become very electable again, if nothing else this must be Trump's goal. The Iraq war legacy must be buried, immigration made an issue and concern for the working class a focus. Continuing on with the policies of Bush with candidates like McCain and Romney is daft.
Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.
It's pretty exhaustive.
I haven't yet studied it, but it certainly looks very chunky - the kind of stuff they should have been doing three years ago in preparation for an agreed line and coherent case now.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
The conservatives' reply to that would be that it was tried in 2012 and failed - though in reality, Romney messed up a winnable election himself; it wasn't his positioning that cost him the election, it was his campaigning.
In fairness to McCain and Romney they were both up against a great campaigner in Obama. However they both had to tack rightward to secure the nomination that compromised their general election strategy.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Both parties consistently win 44-53% of the vote, nationally, which means both parties are pretty good at appealing to the middle ground.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
The Democrats problem is their voters don't turn out for those elections unless they coincide with presidential years. And the gerrymandering works against them until 2022.
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Thats actually an argument for it taking a lot less. Unprecedented EU integration is going to be much more complex than a trade agreement we have existing templates for.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?
How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
Perhaps they could try a platform of economic populism and reducing immigration; maybe find someone high-profile from outside the political establishment to front it... He'd need to be someone pretty outspoken to be able to convince voters he wasn't just a puppet.
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
Why would they be on this occasion?
Ask Richard; he seems to think it will be beyond the wit of man to sort this out in anything other than a geological time-scale...
Thats actually an argument for it taking a lot less. Unprecedented EU integration is going to be much more complex than a trade agreement we have existing templates for.
Depends on the nature of the agreement. Five or six years is plausible for a new deal not based on existing models (as some people have been suggesting), but I agree it's an upper limit. More likely a couple of years for an EEA-style deal.
Again it comes down to the same point: the Leave side have nothing specific to propose, so the Remain side get to define it for them. Exactly as predicted by me and many others.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.
I'm not so sure there's any more mileage in losing audaciously or shamelessly.
When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
I doubt the answer is to be found with someone who thinks Minnesota is a target state for Republicans.
If Trump manages to purge the Republican Party of the neocons they will become very electable again, if nothing else this must be Trump's goal. The Iraq war legacy must be buried, immigration made an issue and concern for the working class a focus. Continuing on with the policies of Bush with candidates like McCain and Romney is daft.
If only Andrew Neil was the main interviewer for the BBC.
His line was pretty weak
"What is your answer to this hypothetical question?"
"It's hypothetical"
"But what is your answer? Why won't you answer?"
The entire debate is about a hypothetical!! You can't talk about all the job losses and extra terrorism if we leave and then not answer questions because its 'hypothetical'!!
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
Why would they be on this occasion?
Ask Richard; he seems to think it will be beyond the wit of man to sort this out in anything other than a geological time-scale...
But we are talking about tariffs. There is no possibility of an embargo on continental goods. So where do the Mercs piled up at the dockside come from?
Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.
It's pretty exhaustive.
I haven't yet studied it, but it certainly looks very chunky - the kind of stuff they should have been doing three years ago in preparation for an agreed line and coherent case now.
This is the sort of stuff that Business for Britain has been doing since it was founded in April 2013.
So they haven't been doing it for 3 years, I'll give you that
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?
I don't have a strong opinion on this overall but the advantages would be: 1) Britain gets out of the CAP. 2) The rest of the EU can integrate and reform without getting dicked about by the British all the time.
Another major crossover between Trump and Sanders supporters is their opposition to the TTIP and TPP. It's actually an issue that a lot of young people get hot under the collar about and where a lot of the Sanders support comes from. Hillary is in favour of both deals and it will be a difficult gap to bridge for people who support Sanders, especially given that Trump is 100% against both.
It's a pure activist thing (just as it is in Britain - try asking people down the pub what they think about TTIP), and activists know to vote Democrat when push comes to shove. What you need for significant Democrat defections/stay-at-homes is something not very active voters really dislike about Clinton, and IMO intense dislike of her is overwhelmingly on the GOP side.
But we're swapping impressions here. Isn't there some polling on favo(u)rability ratings among all segments of the electorate that would show us?
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?
Sovereignty. Democracy.
Freedom to agree your own trade deals outside of Europe.
If we want a customised treaty with the EU, wouldn't all 27 members need to ratify it. Some of those will have negligible trade with the UK and therefore have little incentive to speed up the process. Rather than arguing how long the process would take, can someone just tell us how long all the other treaties involving the EU have taken from the start of negotiations to final ratification. At least then we will have some benchmark against which to assess the claim that it will take 6+ years or longer.
How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
Perhaps they could try a platform of economic populism and reducing immigration; maybe find someone high-profile from outside the political establishment to front it... He'd need to be someone pretty outspoken to be able to convince voters he wasn't just a puppet.
The Republican establishments first and foremost goal is reducing costs for the extremely wealthy. It makes no sense for them to drop that goal to win.
Norman Smith Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.
Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?
Why would they be on this occasion?
Ask Richard; he seems to think it will be beyond the wit of man to sort this out in anything other than a geological time-scale...
But we are talking about tariffs. There is no possibility of an embargo on continental goods. So where do the Mercs piled up at the dockside come from?
What we are talking about is making products British consumers like to buy more expensive, as well as pushing up the price of alternative products. How else do suppliers react when demand increases and competition decreases?
An interesting phenomenon is how forgiving voters and even pundits are. Trump made a civilised speech last night, and immediately there are lots of comments that maybe he's not so bad, sounded quite presidential etc., from people who were practically calling him a KKK sympathiser last week. And in Britain the complete contempt (not least here on PB) that Boris was getting from all sides as he vacillated has evaporated now he's adopted a position popular in his party, even without notable enthusiasm or commitment.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?
Little stuff.
Please do not post on PB whilst standing naked in front of your cheval mirror.
An interesting phenomenon is how forgiving voters and even pundits are. Trump made a civilised speech last night, and immediately there are lots of comments that maybe he's not so bad, sounded quite presidential etc., from people who were practically calling him a KKK sympathiser last week. And in Britain the complete contempt (not least here on PB) that Boris was getting from all sides as he vacillated has evaporated now he's adopted a position popular in his party, even without notable enthusiasm or commitment.
I think that there's a widespread recognition that much of what politicians say is a "mere puff" rather than a binding promise, or something that they truly believe in. For example, I don't doubt that Cameron and his allies genuinely believe that on balance, the UK is better off inside the EU than outside it, But, I'd be very surprised if they truly believe that British nationals will become illegal immigrants, or tourists will be stranded, in the event of a Leave vote.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.
If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'
They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.
Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.
I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.
My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.
Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.
I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)
Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.
Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.
The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.
The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.
I'm not so sure.
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
The conservatives' reply to that would be that it was tried in 2012 and failed - though in reality, Romney messed up a winnable election himself; it wasn't his positioning that cost him the election, it was his campaigning.
In fairness to McCain and Romney they were both up against a great campaigner in Obama. However they both had to tack rightward to secure the nomination that compromised their general election strategy.
Obama reputedly had a brilliant voter targeting operation. Romeny had no chance and this notion that it was just his campaigning that sunk him will kill the GOP if that's all they think was wrong in 2012 this time round.
I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.
My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.
Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.
I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)
Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.
I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.
My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.
Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.
I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)
Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.
That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.
I'm the opposite. The more I think about it more I think we should get out and start making trade deals ASAP so they are in place before crap hits the fan. But think Remain is more likely as internet polls probably stuffed full of PB types who we know are more Leave heavy.
Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.
He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.
In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?
Sovereignty. Democracy.
Freedom to agree your own trade deals outside of Europe.
Little stuff.
Sovereignty is a sliding scale related to the power of those around you; it's not like we don't have it now and will have it if we switch to a different open borders arrangement, surely? Ditto democracy: we'll have less democratic input into the European institutions than at present, but they would still have significant influence over major elements of our economy. It's not clear that either of these are improved by an EEA option.
Own trade deals outside Europe? Fair point maybe, do Switzerland/Norway have greater freedom to agree bilaterals than we do at present?
I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.
My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.
Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.
I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)
Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.
That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.
The other big turnout group are the middle classes, who tend to be more Remain. But I agree with you, if turnout is below GE levels it will massively favour Leave.
Mr. Pubgoer/Mr. Max, interesting, though (to me) surprising.
Well I posted the link in a whatsapp group, and the two vapers in there seem very unimpressed with the idea of classing a non-tobacco product as tobacco just to get a bit more tax out of people.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.
If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'
They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.
Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.
Actually, I think the Republican establishment fear two things. Firstly, Trump will lose very badly, and cost them the Senate. Secondly, and alternatively, Trump will win, by running a populist campaign.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.
If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'
They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.
Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.
The nature of POTOS/Congress means there is little way Trump could threaten "their cosy positions"
GOP turnout is excellent in a diverse and energized race. The Dem race is less interesting but I have little doubt the Trumpster will drive Dems to the polls in November too.
I've just done a Yougov poll which included e-cigarettes. Daft questions really. Nicotine is an acute poison and very unlikely to have any chronic effects (apart from addiction, obviously). The danger from tobacco smoke is chronic.
Confusion between hazard and risk, and between acute and chronic. Apples and oranges as usual.
You can vape around me with to your heart's content. You can't smoke, but bursting into flames is allowed.
Nice response to Dodgy Dave's Acropolis Now "joke":
So not only does this Prime Minister see fit to talk down our Country at every turn, he also see it necessary to make a joke at Greece's expense, where many of its people are suffering daily. This 'man' is an ass. In addition, I understand that it was the EU's puppets who smashed their economy.
Mr. Pubgoer/Mr. Max, interesting, though (to me) surprising.
Well I posted the link in a whatsapp group, and the two vapers in there seem very unimpressed with the idea of classing a non-tobacco product as tobacco just to get a bit more tax out of people.
There'll be plenty of grumbling amongst my vaping friends too. Most I think will go and buy from the home brewers.
I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.
My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.
Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.
I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)
Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.
That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.
The other big turnout group are the middle classes, who tend to be more Remain. But I agree with you, if turnout is below GE levels it will massively favour Leave.
The new Iron Curtain holding back the hordes: The 19-mile barbed wire fence built on Macedonia's border to stop a human tide of migrants as Greece is told it faces being 'sacrificed' to save the EU
Nice response to Dodgy Dave's Acropolis Now "joke":
So not only does this Prime Minister see fit to talk down our Country at every turn, he also see it necessary to make a joke at Greece's expense, where many of its people are suffering daily. This 'man' is an ass. In addition, I understand that it was the EU's puppets who smashed their economy.
EU didn't smash their economy...The Greeks torpedoed their own economy. A place where paying tax is more an act of charity than a civil requirement.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.
Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.
If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'
They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.
Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.
Indeed and with Cruz now his main rival if Trump loses in November it looks like Cruz will be nominee in 2020 a GOP establishment nightmare for two election cycles
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaPl5xwX_-w
The normal criticism is that he's too arrogant. Now he's being accused of not being arrogant enough.
Politics is hilarious!
When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.
Ooppps.
The classic obvious looking "It'll probably happen" bet that is utterly horrendous value
"What is your answer to this hypothetical question?"
"It's hypothetical"
"But what is your answer? Why won't you answer?"
Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero
Project lie exposed...
Norman Smith
Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary
When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.
Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?
1) The party base is further alienated with each whopper
2) Big risk of becoming a laughing stock outside the party
Conclusion: Cameron (and those associated closely with him like Osborne are finished as a political force if they keep this up, regardless of the referendum result. If Cameron clings to office afterwards, then getting legislation through will become very difficult ...eg the reduction in seats to 600.
It's pretty exhaustive.
Where is the positive case here? Nowhere.
If it wasn't so absurd, it'd be insulting
If Trump manages to purge the Republican Party of the neocons they will become very electable again, if nothing else this must be Trump's goal. The Iraq war legacy must be buried, immigration made an issue and concern for the working class a focus. Continuing on with the policies of Bush with candidates like McCain and Romney is daft.
"Brussels tax hike to send e-cigarette price soaring"
I foresee a lot of upset vapers!
Why do you think it's absurd?
Again it comes down to the same point: the Leave side have nothing specific to propose, so the Remain side get to define it for them. Exactly as predicted by me and many others.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/22/analysis-of-donald-trump-tax-plan-sees-a-boon-for-wealthy-and-trillions-in-debt/
A booming underground market will be the result.
So they haven't been doing it for 3 years, I'll give you that
1) Britain gets out of the CAP.
2) The rest of the EU can integrate and reform without getting dicked about by the British all the time.
really dislike about Clinton, and IMO intense dislike of her is overwhelmingly on the GOP side.
But we're swapping impressions here. Isn't there some polling on favo(u)rability ratings among all segments of the electorate that would show us?
Freedom to agree your own trade deals outside of Europe.
Little stuff.
Rather than arguing how long the process would take, can someone just tell us how long all the other treaties involving the EU have taken from the start of negotiations to final ratification. At least then we will have some benchmark against which to assess the claim that it will take 6+ years or longer.
Labour's Ian Austin complains about France being awarded contract to make British medals. Surprised anti-EU MPs haven't made more of this
PM offers to look at this.
They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.
Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.
An unscientific figure of the last couple of places that I worked. I would guess that it is marginally lower than the number of smokers.
Own trade deals outside Europe? Fair point maybe, do Switzerland/Norway have greater freedom to agree bilaterals than we do at present?
There's hardly a mention of it even on Twitter bar Acropolis joke. Even the journalists seem bored.
GOP turnout is excellent in a diverse and energized race. The Dem race is less interesting but I have little doubt the Trumpster will drive Dems to the polls in November too.
That was how the Labour Party came to be providing outdoor relief for out-of-work failed Marxist finance ministers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/great-news-for-labour-jeremy-corbyn-is-now-being-advised-by-a-greek-biker-and-a-marxist-hack-a6905331.html
I've just done a Yougov poll which included e-cigarettes. Daft questions really. Nicotine is an acute poison and very unlikely to have any chronic effects (apart from addiction, obviously). The danger from tobacco smoke is chronic.
Confusion between hazard and risk, and between acute and chronic. Apples and oranges as usual.
You can vape around me with to your heart's content. You can't smoke, but bursting into flames is allowed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35702832
So not only does this Prime Minister see fit to talk down our Country at every turn, he also see it necessary to make a joke at Greece's expense, where many of its people are suffering daily. This 'man' is an ass. In addition, I understand that it was the EU's puppets who smashed their economy.
Most I think will go and buy from the home brewers.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3471157/Hundreds-trapped-Greece-s-Macedonian-border-revealed-131-000-migrants-crossed-Mediterranean-year-total-six-months-2015.html#ixzz41kVxQNT6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook