Good evening. It looks like The Donald will win all 5 states tonight. Being tired I'll peruse the results tomorrow morning. twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/725076121751015425
Just to mark your card, 538 think that Trump needs to win 97 delegates to be on track for a majority.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
Good evening. It looks like The Donald will win all 5 states tonight. Being tired I'll peruse the results tomorrow morning. twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/725076121751015425
Just to mark your card, 538 think that Trump needs to win 97 delegates to be on track for a majority.
Got to say I am very pleased it was Obama in the White House from 2009 and not John McCain. There was nothing inevitable about the global economy not going into a complete death spiral after the crash.
I was an Obamacan in 2008. A rightwinger who wanted him to win. I would have voted for him. I still think his election was a good thing for racial equality, in itself.
But he has been a bitter disappointment ever since. A terrible foreign policy president, timid and vacillating, and a mediocre domestic president, responsible for a half hearted reform of health, and not much else.
The times were against him. He faced relative American decline and a tough economy. But he didn't have to be quite SO shite. Yet he was.
He was a great campaigner.... and that's all.
He was a lot better than the alternative. Obama made some big economic calls at the start of his presidency that prevented a terrible situation becoming an all-out catastrophe. That was an important achievement. The rest has been disappointing, but times were against him. If he could stand again this year he'd probably win.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
I think the size of the readership of the Sun in Liverpool was of Scottish Tory proportions.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
Oh that one. The Sun has to apologize for so many things you almost forget which is which.
The Naz Shah story perpetuates a toxic narrative for Labour.
I don't for a second believe that 1% of white British Labour voters are anti-Semitic. It just doesn't exist in their core vote, or their wider British vote.
But the Labour PARTY is now infested with anti-Semitism. And the vector is: Islam.
At what point does a party infested with anti-Semites become an anti-Semitic party?
Quite soon, unless they take drastic action.
By all accounts, the Labour party at university level - one of the few places where they still thrive - is ardently anti-Semitic, much of it fired by Islamists.
Such is the blindness of Corbyn Labour that those inside the party who point out its problem with anti-semitism and demand action are accused of attacking the leader. I am glad to have washed my hands of it, though regretful that its growing toxicity means this useless government has a completely free hand.
Got to say I am very pleased it was Obama in the White House from 2009 and not John McCain. There was nothing inevitable about the global economy not going into a complete death spiral after the crash.
I was an Obamacan in 2008. A rightwinger who wanted him to win. I would have voted for him. I still think his election was a good thing for racial equality, in itself.
But he has been a bitter disappointment ever since. A terrible foreign policy president, timid and vacillating, and a mediocre domestic president, responsible for a half hearted reform of health, and not much else.
The times were against him. He faced relative American decline and a tough economy. But he didn't have to be quite SO shite. Yet he was.
He was a great campaigner.... and that's all.
He was a lot better than the alternative. Obama made some big economic calls at the start of his presidency that prevented a terrible situation becoming an all-out catastrophe. That was an important achievement. The rest has been disappointing, but times were against him. If he could stand again this year he'd probably win.
McCain would have been a better president.
With McCain we would be all dead by now. People should learn a lesson from G.W. Bush.
Good evening. It looks like The Donald will win all 5 states tonight. Being tired I'll peruse the results tomorrow morning. twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/725076121751015425
Just to mark your card, 538 think that Trump needs to win 97 delegates to be on track for a majority.
If he's lucky he might get 107-111.
If 538 is including unbound PA then Trump will crush that, if they aren't he'll probably still beat it.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
I think the size of the readership of the Sun in Liverpool was of Scottish Tory proportions.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
I think the size of the readership of the Sun in Liverpool was of Scottish Tory proportions.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
Oh that one. The Sun has to apologize for so many things you almost forget which is which.
I cannot imagine any front page being more insulting, shameful and insensitive. I remember it well and the fury it provoked.
Good evening. It looks like The Donald will win all 5 states tonight. Being tired I'll peruse the results tomorrow morning. twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/725076121751015425
Just to mark your card, 538 think that Trump needs to win 97 delegates to be on track for a majority.
If he's lucky he might get 107-111.
If 538 is including unbound PA then Trump will crush that, if they aren't he'll probably still beat it.
25 CT 16 DE 32 MA 11 RI 17 PA
And about 30 unbound PA delegates maybe.
28 CT 16 DE 38 MA 12 RI 17 PA
That's the max. Trump could get on a very good day today.
Got to say I am very pleased it was Obama in the White House from 2009 and not John McCain. There was nothing inevitable about the global economy not going into a complete death spiral after the crash.
I was an Obamacan in 2008. A rightwinger who wanted him to win. I would have voted for him. I still think his election was a good thing for racial equality, in itself.
But he has been a bitter disappointment ever since. A terrible foreign policy president, timid and vacillating, and a mediocre domestic president, responsible for a half hearted reform of health, and not much else.
The times were against him. He faced relative American decline and a tough economy. But he didn't have to be quite SO shite. Yet he was.
He was a great campaigner.... and that's all.
He was a lot better than the alternative. Obama made some big economic calls at the start of his presidency that prevented a terrible situation becoming an all-out catastrophe. That was an important achievement. The rest has been disappointing, but times were against him. If he could stand again this year he'd probably win.
McCain would have been a better president.
No, he'd have wiped out the global economy. He had no idea what was happening or why. That crisis needed brains to tackle it. Whatever else he lacks Obama has one of those. McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Got to say I am very pleased it was Obama in the White House from 2009 and not John McCain. There was nothing inevitable about the global economy not going into a complete death spiral after the crash.
I was an Obamacan in 2008. A rightwinger who wanted him to win. I would have voted for him. I still think his election was a good thing for racial equality, in itself.
But he has been a bitter disappointment ever since. A terrible foreign policy president, timid and vacillating, and a mediocre domestic president, responsible for a half hearted reform of health, and not much else.
The times were against him. He faced relative American decline and a tough economy. But he didn't have to be quite SO shite. Yet he was.
He was a great campaigner.... and that's all.
He was a lot better than the alternative. Obama made some big economic calls at the start of his presidency that prevented a terrible situation becoming an all-out catastrophe. That was an important achievement. The rest has been disappointing, but times were against him. If he could stand again this year he'd probably win.
McCain would have been a better president.
No, he'd have wiped out the global economy. He had no idea what was happening or why. That crisis needed brains to tackle it. Whatever else he lacks Obama has one of those. McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Christ, I've just unrepressed Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.
With Nuclear fecking Man
Lol!
When I was about ten Superman III was probably my favourite film, despite being absolutely terrified by the scene where the supercomputer turns the woman into an evil robot.
Saw it again last year and realised how truly awful it was.
I still like it, in a 6 year old sort of way. The Gus Gorman character is amusing.
Got to say I am very pleased it was Obama in the White House from 2009 and not John McCain. There was nothing inevitable about the global economy not going into a complete death spiral after the crash.
Paulson did a decent job, although he was too close to Goldman for decency
I have a very good Paulson story, but it's probably not for public consumption.
In 1914 about 7% of the population paid income tax, less than 20% of workers did just before WWII
In 1914, government spending was 6% of GDP. that should again be the target.
How can that be the target ?
Defence spending is about 2% and foreign aid is about 1%, what would be left for the Home Office, or Education, Healthcare, Pensions, Transport, ect ect.
Hillsbrough not mentioned on the front page of the Times either.
Tbh I don't see it as major front page material, if I was an editor - of any paper. It's an interesting new judgement on a truly terrible incident. But it happened decades ago. Unless you were there, or you are Liverpudlian, then it's just not THAT interesting.
Cruel but true. Note the Daily Mail didn't make it THE front page news, either. And they love embarrassing the Sun.
That said, the Sun should just have said SORRY on page one. And done themselves credit, thereby.
It's a big enough story that it should be on the front page, even if it's not the lead.
Am I the only person who thought Hillary's 58% in New York wasn't that great given it was her "home state" ?
(I know Bernie is from there, but he had VT)
Not that I care for defending Hilary, but if you are any high-profile local politician you have probably pissed off enough people so they never vote for you again.
Kasich only got 47% in Ohio and he's the current Governor...
'In 1914, government spending was 6% of GDP. that should again be the target.
How can that be the target ?
Defence spending is about 2% and foreign aid is about 1%, what would be left for the Home Office, or Education, Healthcare, Pensions, Transport, ect ect.'
In 1914 about 7% of the population paid income tax, less than 20% of workers did just before WWII
In 1914, government spending was 6% of GDP. that should again be the target.
How can that be the target ?
Defence spending is about 2% and foreign aid is about 1%, what would be left for the Home Office, or Education, Healthcare, Pensions, Transport, ect ect.
Well, we'd get rid of EU contributions and foreign aid, which would be a good start.
Am I the only person who thought Hillary's 58% in New York wasn't that great given it was her "home state" ?
(I know Bernie is from there, but he had VT)
Not that I care for defending Hilary, but if you are any high-profile local politician you have probably pissed off enough people so they never vote for you again.
Kasich only got 47% in Ohio and he's the current Governor...
Well certainly in upstate New York Hillary doesn't seem all that loved. NYC was good for her mind.
MSNBC has blurred that Trump may win Pennsylvania by 20 points. That's on the low end for Trump, may put Connecticut in danger for him falling under 50%.
The Naz Shah story perpetuates a toxic narrative for Labour.
I don't for a second believe that 1% of white British Labour voters are anti-Semitic. It just doesn't exist in their core vote, or their wider British vote.
But the Labour PARTY is now infested with anti-Semitism. And the vector is: Islam.
At what point does a party infested with anti-Semites become an anti-Semitic party?
Quite soon, unless they take drastic action.
By all accounts, the Labour party at university level - one of the few places where they still thrive - is ardently anti-Semitic, much of it fired by Islamists.
It's strange. Blair took us into Iraq and then Labour had a Jewish leader. Unless it's all changed in the last year.
MSNBC has blurred that Trump may win Pennsylvania by 20 points. That's on the low end for Trump, may put Connecticut in danger for him falling under 50%.
Anyhoo, the big story will be about what's not on the front page of The Sun.
Nor on the front page of The Times. A coincidence I'm sure.
Tom Newton Dunn having massive car crash on Sky's paper review. What were they thinking. Just plain unforgivable that they couldn't say sorry today of all days. Suspect that is the end of the Sun in Liverpool for a generation
I think the size of the readership of the Sun in Liverpool was of Scottish Tory proportions.
The Sun isn't the second-most popular paper in Liverpool
The Naz Shah story perpetuates a toxic narrative for Labour.
I don't for a second believe that 1% of white British Labour voters are anti-Semitic. It just doesn't exist in their core vote, or their wider British vote.
But the Labour PARTY is now infested with anti-Semitism. And the vector is: Islam.
At what point does a party infested with anti-Semites become an anti-Semitic party?
Quite soon, unless they take drastic action.
By all accounts, the Labour party at university level - one of the few places where they still thrive - is ardently anti-Semitic, much of it fired by Islamists.
It's strange. Blair took us into Iraq and then Labour had a Jewish leader. Unless it's all changed in the last year.
It's worth remembering that for some Islamists the only thing wrong with the Holocaust was that it did not go far enough. And there are historical links between the Nazis and some of the proponents of Islamist ideology. It's not surprising that the virus of anti-Semitism should have mutated in this way, a mutation the Left has refused to recognise - let alone do anything about - despite all its talk of anti- racism.
The Naz Shah story perpetuates a toxic narrative for Labour.
I don't for a second believe that 1% of white British Labour voters are anti-Semitic. It just doesn't exist in their core vote, or their wider British vote.
But the Labour PARTY is now infested with anti-Semitism. And the vector is: Islam.
At what point does a party infested with anti-Semites become an anti-Semitic party?
Quite soon, unless they take drastic action.
By all accounts, the Labour party at university level - one of the few places where they still thrive - is ardently anti-Semitic, much of it fired by Islamists.
It's strange. Blair took us into Iraq and then Labour had a Jewish leader. Unless it's all changed in the last year.
Unfortunately, there are some hard-lefties (eg. Ken Livingstone) who think that, just because Jewish people are proportionally richer than other "minorities", that that means discrimination against them doesn't matter as much.
That said, antisemitism has been on the rise generally the last couple of years, not just in Labour / the left.
The Naz Shah story perpetuates a toxic narrative for Labour.
I don't for a second believe that 1% of white British Labour voters are anti-Semitic. It just doesn't exist in their core vote, or their wider British vote.
But the Labour PARTY is now infested with anti-Semitism. And the vector is: Islam.
At what point does a party infested with anti-Semites become an anti-Semitic party?
Quite soon, unless they take drastic action.
By all accounts, the Labour party at university level - one of the few places where they still thrive - is ardently anti-Semitic, much of it fired by Islamists.
It's strange. Blair took us into Iraq and then Labour had a Jewish leader. Unless it's all changed in the last year.
Following the example of the new LOTO, senior labour politicians are now much less reticent about pulling their punches for fear of calling offence. For example, referring to the conduct of Sir Philip Green (former boss of BHS), Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, said: "In this situation it appears this owner extracted hundreds of millions of pounds from the business and walked away to his favourite tax haven, leaving the Pension Protection Scheme to pick up the bill."
A respectable 2nd for Bernie but still a clear second, and he probably won RI. Probably close enough to enable him to carry on to a *possible* win in California if he wants to - and why wouldn't he?
In 1914 about 7% of the population paid income tax, less than 20% of workers did just before WWII
In 1914, government spending was 6% of GDP. that should again be the target.
In 1914 there was no NHS, no welfare state, limited state education, in fact the only thing the state really spent money on was the armed forces and the police, of course there was not yet universal suffrage either
Based on that chart of presidents from 1940 FDR, IKE, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush Snr, George W Bush and Obama all increased spending. JFK, Nixon and Carter left it unchanged. The only presidents to cut it were Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, both Democrats
Based on that chart of presidents from 1940 FDR, IKE, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush Snr, George W Bush and Obama all increased spending. JFK, Nixon and Carter left it unchanged. The only presidents to cut it were Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, both Democrats
That's part of the reason Americans are mad as hell at Washington. Even after the most savage mid-term beating in 80 years in 2010 due to spending and Obamacare - even Obama called it a shellacking - the spending went on. In 2014 Republicans took control of Congress, less as a vote of confidence in their policies than as a way to stop the country's drift leftwards and stop Obama. The spending continued.
The country is mad that whoever is in charge, nothing stops the spending growth and the executive orders. Hence the desire for a non-pol this time. Folks have had enough.
The country is mad that whoever is in charge, nothing stops the spending growth and the executive orders. Hence the desire for a non-pol this time. Folks have had enough.
It's a little simplistic, but makes the point.
One of Trump's other great arguments is that in terms of campaign spending, he's getting more bang for his buck than anyone. If you can spend less and get better results, what's not to like?
Based on that chart of presidents from 1940 FDR, IKE, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Bush Snr, George W Bush and Obama all increased spending. JFK, Nixon and Carter left it unchanged. The only presidents to cut it were Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, both Democrats
That's part of the reason Americans are mad as hell at Washington. Even after the most savage mid-term beating in 80 years in 2010 due to spending and Obamacare - even Obama called it a shellacking - the spending went on. In 2014 Republicans took control of Congress, less as a vote of confidence in their policies than as a way to stop the country's drift leftwards and stop Obama. The spending continued.
The country is mad that whoever is in charge, nothing stops the spending growth and the executive orders. Hence the desire for a non-pol this time. Folks have had enough.
It's a little simplistic, but makes the point.
The rate of spending did decline from 2010-2016 and much of the decline under Clinton was due to the GOP congress. Whether Trump will really do much about spending is another matter, he is really a populist not a fiscal conservative
Hillary has picked Trump as her VP nominee - from Ted Cruz.
No wonder Trump calls him LYIN' TED
Cruz's exaggerated full body chuckle after one of his laughter lines makes him look like a even more of a cartoon villain that he normally does. He's Dick Dastardly and Muttley in one person.
Comments
The Sun has to apologize for so many things you almost forget which is which.
The man does deliver a nice speech.
https://twitter.com/TonyBarretTimes/status/725076412936376320
People should learn a lesson from G.W. Bush.
25 CT
16 DE
32 MA
11 RI
17 PA
And about 30 unbound PA delegates maybe.
16 DE
38 MA
12 RI
17 PA
That's the max. Trump could get on a very good day today.
GOP Penn.
Feelings if Trump is elected:
Excited 36
Optimistic 26
Concerned 14
Scared 23
From that my estimates are max 62 for Trump, min 49.
In N.Y the numbers where:
35/27/14/22
Late deciders
Kasich 39
Trump 35
Cruz 16.
The magic number for Connecticut is 50% for Trump to win all delegates.
https://twitter.com/Domponsford/status/724955999875043328
(I know Bernie is from there, but he had VT)
But my spreadsheet (Based off Huffpost pollster) shows a bit of late movement to Bernie.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/112R0zDRQLC2cxE1op0TY-IBq_PTtcxpwgfbu87DI45w/edit#gid=1244356924 (CT tab)
Defence spending is about 2% and foreign aid is about 1%, what would be left for the Home Office, or Education, Healthcare, Pensions, Transport, ect ect.
Kasich only got 47% in Ohio and he's the current Governor...
'In 1914, government spending was 6% of GDP. that should again be the target.
How can that be the target ?
Defence spending is about 2% and foreign aid is about 1%, what would be left for the Home Office, or Education, Healthcare, Pensions, Transport, ect ect.'
Plenty..
NYC was good for her mind.
Candidate with most votes should win:
PA 70
CT 68
MD 66
So the range for Trump is probably 4% between states.
That's on the low end for Trump, may put Connecticut in danger for him falling under 50%.
(Am I on the right story here?)
Ryan Grim @ryangrim 3m3 minutes ago
Exit polls have Trump stomping mofos, pulling more than 60%
Not even the blatantly HRC supporting Nate Silver has http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/connecticut-democratic/ Hillary as a lock there.
That said, antisemitism has been on the rise generally the last couple of years, not just in Labour / the left.
Link to US spending as % GDP at
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2016USpt_88ps5n
CT
Clinton – 51%
Sanders – 47%
MD
Clinton – 64%
Sanders – 34%
PA
Clinton – 56%
Sanders – 44%
Change 35%
Values 29
Tells it like it is 23
Can win 11
With that Trump should be in the mid 50's.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/725086001434120192
They also have Trump over 60% in all states.
"iPhone Sales Decline For The First Time Ever
As predicted, the tech company’s latest quarterly earnings were a disappointment."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/apple-iphones-sales-decline_us_571fd19fe4b0b49df6a979d7
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/725094318625685510
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/725096973397807105
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ENR_New/Home/OfficeResults?OfficeID=18&ElectionID=undefined&ElectionType=undefined&IsActive=undefined
Seeing the victims families link arms after the verdict and sing "You'll never walk alone" was very moving, and I'm not even a soccer fan.
They've been showing excerpts all day and at lunch the first comment from everyone was they couldn't believe that there were not seats for everyone.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7104680/PMs-aides-and-ministers-are-using-WhatsApp-in-pro-EU-campaign-to-avoid-embarrassing-leaks.html
Using 'WhatsApp' is a 'Shady Practice'.......
That'll persuade the under 35s......
It's a complete massacre if he follows through with that lot.
It's something that I've noticed that the top 2 in 2016 always get either the same as Romney or Santorum did in 2012 in each state.
If history is any guide, none of these states is likely to vote GOP in November.
The country is mad that whoever is in charge, nothing stops the spending growth and the executive orders. Hence the desire for a non-pol this time. Folks have had enough.
It's a little simplistic, but makes the point.
If dinosaurs had National Committees... "I think we can work with that meteor. It will act more presidential in the general ... "
Meanwhile, closer to home:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water-charges-set-to-be-scrapped-for-foreseeable-future-as-fine-gael-and-fianna-fil-finally-close-in-on-deal-34662791.html
5 things to watch for in Tuesday’s I-95 primary
No wonder Trump calls him LYIN' TED
Hillary is projected to win Maryland.
GOP
Trump 58
Cruz 22
Kasich 17
Dems
Clinton 55
Sanders 45
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/pa/Rep
PA
Trump 58
Cruz 22
Kasich 17
MD
Trump 53
Kasich 24
Cruz 21
CT
Trump 57
Kasich 26
Cruz 15