If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Clinton is ill, physically and mentally, while Trump is the picture of vigour and good mental health.
Trump acts like a deranged loon, Clinton acts statesmanlike
The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
The Clintons have had multiple airings of their dirty laundry from Whitewater to Monicagate to the email scandal, there are treasure troves of information on Trump's dodgy business dealings with dubious people and his personal life (including the reasons Ivana Trump left him) which have yet to get a national hearing
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
You mean the Whitewater rubbish. Remind us what happened to that ?
Your response is why Clinton has a problem. Most people mistakenly assume that all of the past scandals are already factored in to people's perceptions of her, but the truth is that most people are only vaguely aware of one or two stories and will be shocked by some of the details.
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Well it begins with
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
"...but as a Tory I was delighted as it reinforces the view that London is different (in a bad way) and they vote Labour"?
Well the first six words of that is right, but the rest is very wrong.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
As predicted, the grid is kicking on, first the spooks
/twitter.com/suttonnick/status/729053891204161536
Project Fear!
If I were to advise Remain, I'd advise them not to overplay their hand.
They might convince a few people with a gentle warning on security co-operation, but likening Brexit to a father abandoning his wife and children risks making them a target for mockery.
Well the CAA have just done Leave a big favour. They have responded to the petition calling for the Superpuma helicopters to be grounded permanently (26,000 signatures over the last 6 days) by saying that they have no authority to do that. It has to be decided at a European level.
Now actually the fact is that it has to be decided by the EASA which is the EU plus the EFTA countries. But no one seems to be paying much attention to this at the moment and are just saying it is 'the EU'.
So whilst I am annoyed that the CAA does not have the authority to produce a permanent ban, the impression I get at the moment is that the lack of clarity by they CAA has helped Leave gain a little more support.
Trump won the nomination by scoring lots of non-majority plurality wins with about 10.5 million votes; adding in the primaries to come, maybe that would have been 12 million had Cruz remained in the race. That's nice, but you need a majority and about 60 million to be President.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
Out of morbid curiosity, what happens if a Presidential candidate dies, or becomes incapacitated during the campaign?
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
The Trump rape claim has pretty much been debunked and hence why it is not getting any air time. The women claimed she was connected to that dodgy guy who all the rich folks used to hang out with, but there is no mention of her in his little black book etc and she hasn't offered any proof of moving in those circles.
Trump has lived his life as a rich Manhattan socialite in the glare of enthusiastic negative press coverage of his affairs, peccadillos etc. There is nothing really to be uncovered from his past. It's all out there in the public domain.
Clinton is quite the opposite. The mainstream press has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover their scandals in more than cursory fashion, and there have been many over the years.
You mean the Whitewater rubbish. Remind us what happened to that ?
Your response is why Clinton has a problem. Most people mistakenly assume that all of the past scandals are already factored in to people's perceptions of her, but the truth is that most people are only vaguely aware of one or two stories and will be shocked by some of the details.
They are aware of enough, it has had a big enough hearing, she has the biggest negatives of any nominee since 1980, it is just the GOP have managed to nominate a candidate with even worse negatives which gives her her chance, it will not be an election of inspiration, it will be an election of which candidate voters loathe least after the mud slinging both campaigns will indulge in
Good article from Khan in the Observer. Talks about the damage of anti-Semitism in Labour and the importance of reaching beyond the core to engage with non-Labour voters. Lots of lessons for Corbyn Zlabour in his campaign, all of which will be ignored, of course. Why engage with ordinary voters when it's so much nicer to stay in your comfort zone? But I guess the difference between Khan and Corbyn is that the former wants to be in power to actually get things done.
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Clinton is ill, physically and mentally, while Trump is the picture of vigour and good mental health.
Trump acts like a deranged loon, Clinton acts statesmanlike
The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
Utter rubbish, she is comfortably ahead of Trump in the poll average, had the GOP nominated Kasich your statement may be plausible, against Trump absolutely not
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
Out of morbid curiosity, what happens if a Presidential candidate dies, or becomes incapacitated during the campaign?
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
So what, his alzheimers was still there and he still won, there is no evidence Hillary even has alzheimers as yet
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
Out of morbid curiosity, what happens if a Presidential candidate dies, or becomes incapacitated during the campaign?
Depends on when that happens.
Their VP nominee becomes the candidate if after the convention
Sadiq Khan, the new Labour mayor of London, has launched an extraordinary attack on David Cameron and his defeated opponent, Zac Goldsmith, accusing them of trying to turn different ethnic communities against each other to stop him winning in the capital.
Writing in the Observer after becoming the most powerful Muslim politician in Europe, Khan says the prime minister and Goldsmith deployed tactics “straight out of the Donald Trump playbook” – a reference to the anti-Muslim campaign of the Republican hopeful in the US.
Bad start for Khan. One should be magnanimous in victory..
Magnanimous with those who play the race card ?
In victory, yes. I hope Khan doesn't prove to be a divisive force but he's got off on the wrong foot.
Don't forget that after the GE last year he spoke in Wandsworth I think and called the voters 'bastards'. He remains a nasty piece of work.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Zac's not going to like my morning thread.
But will we?
Well I've got in a gratuitous kick to some Leavers in it
(Although I kick Remain for the same reason too)
I think we will all be feeling pretty well kicked in 7 weeks time.
That's why I booked our holiday a week later.
Well it begins with
'As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign'
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
Trump: "Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics. Hillary was an enabler. Some of those women were destroyed, not by him, but by the way she treated them after it went down."
It's true he was a serial abuser, and it's also true that some of the women's lives were destroyed by Hillary going after them, so hardly Trumpian hyperbole in this case.
This is a very suspicious claim. The alleged 'event' took place in 1994 in New York. The suit is filed 22 years later in California, where the rape statute of limitation is 6 years. There is (I think) n
It sounds like a gold digging expedition and the filing date seems calculated to cause the maximum damage to Trump's campaign.
Maybe Ms. Johnson is not aware of Trump's reputation of never settling cases, always pursuing them through the courts to a conclusion.
I suspect she won't get much satisfaction on the legal front.
It is not just her, his comments on Heidi Cruz and Megyn Kelly, Rosie O'Donnell and Carly Fiorina and Selina Scott's account of her mee>
His twitter feuds with celebrity females hardly falls into the same category though, and probably helped him on the non-PC front. I cannot see him suffering any further damage at this point from the Megyn Kelly or Rosie O'Donnell stuff, and who cares about Carly Fiorina?
I am having a hard time working why everyone is so convinced Trump is dead in the water. He is strongly disliked by 75% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. So what? Obama won these groups with 93%, 77% and 73%, so no change there.
The only difference on the negatives side is that Trump is losing white women. But that has to be balanced by a massive reinvigoration of the white male vote, the poaching of many blue collar white males from the Democrats and Hillary's own high negatives, particularly with the under 35s, which mean that she will not excite the Dem base. She has to rely on the Donald for that.
On balance, I think this is a very close election, not the blow out most assume.
And I will be depressed whatever the outcome.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
How do you plan a campaign grid against someone with that kind of work rate who can dominate a news cycle at will by dropping a few phrases into his stump speech?
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
So what, his alzheimers was still there and he still won, there is no evidence Hillary even has alzheimers as yet
She has post concussive syndrome ( not Alzheimer's ) and should be kept as far away from the nuclear football as is humanly possible.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan (and the media) concealed it well, and there was no internet in 1980.
The voters mistook his amiable idiocy for homespun charm...
So what, his alzheimers was still there and he still won, there is no evidence Hillary even has alzheimers as yet
She has post concussive syndrome ( not Alzheimer's ) and should be kept as far away from the nuclear football as is humanly possible.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
If The Donald does become POTUS we'll certainly have a LOT of fun in the next four years!
Yes - I must say it's hokum but it's quite engaging hokum - some of the techniques of stand-up comedy turned to political use. I still think he'd be a completely random President, but as you say he'd be fun too.
Clinton is ill, physically and mentally, while Trump is the picture of vigour and good mental health.
Trump acts like a deranged loon, Clinton acts statesmanlike
The Dem's should pray that the FBI arrest Hillary and put an end to her Presidential bid. Either Biden or Sanders would fare far better against Trump. She's going to be annihilated.
What event is going to make people revise their opinion of either Trump or Clinton, two of the thst well know people in America?
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
That's one of the things I look at.
Perhaps 2020 will give us the result we thought 2015 was going to give us. But I still think Labour need to replace Corbyn to have any hope of getting near Number 10.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right? Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
That's one of the things I look at.
Perhaps 2020 will give us the result we thought 2015 was going to give us. But I still think Labour need to replace Corbyn to have any hope of getting near Number 10.
I was thinking that.
In 2015, we got the result people thinking we'd get in 2010, a small Tory majority, in 2020 will see the result people were expecting in 2015, a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.
The Tories hold Trafford though, which is technically part of Greater Manchester
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
With white working class voters possibly, when you include white males who are college graduates and professionals yes
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.
Labour have a massive lead over the Conservatives across the Metropolitan Boroughs, and a substantial lead in London. Their problems lie across the rest of the country.
Clinton has already started to suffer from geriatric illnesses. The cause of the chronic cough is anyone's guess.
She is also on Coumadin, after having experienced two deep vein thromboses. Four years ago she had a severe fall which left her with concussion and a clot on the brain.
Her aide has stated in a leaked private message that she is 'often confused'.
Did not stop Reagan
Reagan did not suffer from dementia until after his terms in office. While some have claimed he was senile in his second term, his doctors and his cabinet and aides all strongly denied that even after his retirement. No-one, as far as I know, claimed he was suffering any form of dementia during his successful presidential campaigns.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right? Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
Initially she did and that's how she built up her delegate lead against Bernie, but as the contest wore on her numbers got worse and worse. Trump will be able to peel off some of the same people with his nationalist jobs message.
Hillary will not take anything close to the percentage won by Obama.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
Trump appeals to the exact kind of person that African-Americans fear most, right? Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
Trump will probably do a lot better with black voters than Mitt Romney.
He is not dead in the water, nobody who has the nomination of a major party ever is but you are forgetting Obama actually won the 2012 election, for Trump to win he actually needs to convert some minorities and women to his cause. Also, Trump would have to win close to 70% of white males to counteract his negatives with other groups, something even Reagan himself did not achieve
You seriously doubt that Trump could get to 70% with white males?
On the demographic question, my prediction is that the black vote will be a big factor in Trump's favour. If nothing else changes from 2012 he would only need to win 30% to take the White House.
He will not get 30% of the black vote, especially with Obama campaigning for Hillary
Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.
What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.
The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.
What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.
If Trump does not win the PV vote he loses, Romney did worse in the EC vote than the popular vote in 2012
The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
In politics sometimes perceptions matter more than the facts, and we've had several Tories publicly condemn the campaign.
Yes - and since Khan has now won, were the same accusations to be made,/continued (even if with reason) it would be taken as an attack on all those who voted for Khan as well, since they heard the accusations and decided they were nonsense.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.
Didn't it used to be all 96? The red fortress must be crumbling!
Trump has little to no chance of winning the popular vote. The question is can he win enough states like florida. Hillary racking up all the massive Hispanic vote in california is irrelevant, it all about those crucial 10 or so states.
What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.
Obviously not, but it's still relevant. Hillary wins among non-whites, Trump wins among whites who live near non-whites. This is why I think Hillary will retain the ethnic minority vote at Obama levels, with her African-American vote share at near-Obama levels. Look at the levels of fear and unease among black people in America and I find it hard to believe they will vote for Trump in large numbers!
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Well you can be One Nation Tories but be pragmatic enough to understand that you can't win every seat in the country. To my mind it doesn't hurt the Tories too much to have London viewed as going against the grain. That said, I don't think they will be too happy with the negative press. I suspect it might lead to some Tories going back to the Lib Dems.
There are plenty of big English cities more Labour than London: 95 out of 96 Manchester councillors are Labour, for example.
Didn't it used to be all 96? The red fortress must be crumbling!
Lib Dem surge, they took a seat this week.
Probably a bigger achievement than the Tories finishing ahead of Labour in Scotland
The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
Many polls had Cruz doing better than Trump v Hillary, Trump is also the first Republican nominee since Goldwater to have substantial numbers of senior Republicans refuse to endorse him
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need ffor more. if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
Good article from Khan in the Observer. Talks about the damage of anti-Semitism in Labour and the importance of reaching beyond the core to engage with non-Labour voters.
The Khan situation reminds me quite a bit of Cameron in some ways. Post GE there was quite a lot of comment around that a lot of voters had a fairly benign or banal view of Cameron despite 5 years of cuts and accusations he was or wanted to be a right wing nutjob; they didn't fear him, even if he really was more right wing than he presents sometimes. Similarly with Khan, whatever the level of substance to the allegations against him re past associations, he just doesn't come across as someone to be feared in any way. He looks and sounds ordinary, even boring, and obviously makes an effort to say the right things in a way which shows he is aware of problems. He'll probably be a decent mayor.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
All these comparisons are stupid.
Goldwater was 50 years ago. No internet. Or even Colour TV.
And a country still reeling from probably its greatest political tragedy, seeking stability and continuity, as best it could.
And Trump is no Goldwater, anyhow.
Trump is Trump. No-one else.
Like no other candidate ever in US history... [perhaps Huey Long comes closest, but he never got as far as a POTUS run]
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need for it...if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need for it...if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
Churchill used to do much of his work in bed and in the bath
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need for it...if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
Churchill used to do much of his work in bed and in the bath
The Trump Presidency will just assume an inevitability sooner or later.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Trump is Goldwater 2 (albeit he will probably win a few more states), Trump is a once in a generation gift from the Republicans to the Democrats in an election the GOP had every chance of winning!
Cruz would have been Goldwater 2. Trump is a much tougher opponent.
All these comparisons are stupid.
Goldwater was 50 years ago. No internet. Or even Colour TV.
And a country still reeling from probably its greatest political tragedy, seeking stability and continuity, as best it could.
And Trump is no Goldwater, anyhow.
Trump is Trump. No-one else.
Like no other candidate ever in US history... [perhaps Huey Long comes closest, but he never got as far as a POTUS run]
Trump is running the same redneck focused campaign Goldwater did (Goldwater won the deep south for the GOP for the first time since the Civil War while getting trounced everywhere else)
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
In all honesty, I don't know how people find the energy to be in positions of power and influence sometimes. I knew someone who had a theory a lot of the great people of history were also people able to get by on less sleep than most people, say 3-4 hours a night.
I don't often get more than 4-5hrs a night (usually head to bed at 4am & get up at 8am) & don't feel the need for it...if nothing else it enables you to get a lot more done. I usually get the most done in that 11 to 4am slot as not many distractions.
If I don't get a solid 9 hours I'm pretty spent to be honest, and even then it takes me a few hours to get up to speed. Really cuts into my time.
Churchill used to do much of his work in bed and in the bath
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Personally I think Trump could pick up Florida and Colorado but lose North Carolina and Utah
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
What puzzles me is that the Tories are still digging, with the Fallon interview today. I can see in a cynical way why they tried to play the Muslim card before the election - they thought they were losing so they might as well try it. But what's the point of still going on about it?
Khan will be there for 4 years whatever they say. If he introduces sharia law and opens an ISIS recruiting office, they will have plenty of time to point it out; if he doesn't and is just a normal mayor, the continued warnings will look somewhere between stupid and poor losers. Why don't they either congratulate him with good grace or, if they can't bear to do that, just STFU?
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Trump doesn't seem to do well among white people who live in states which are overwhelmingly white.
Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
What puzzles me is that the Tories are still digging, with the Fallon interview today. I can see in a cynical way why they tried to play the Muslim card before the election - they thought they were losing so they might as well try it. But what's the point of still going on about it?
Khan will be there for 4 years whatever they say. If he introduces sharia law and opens an ISIS recruiting office, they will have plenty of time to point it out; if he doesn't and is just a normal mayor, the continued warnings will look somewhere between stupid and poor losers. Why don't they either congratulate him with good grace or, if they can't bear to do that, just STFU?
London isn't Britain.
It isn't representative and often feels barely part of it.
When people witter on about how bad the EU referendum result will be for the City most of the country says, "so what, they're greedy bastards anyway, let them suffer."
London is an example of how awful Britain could become in many perceptions.
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Trump doesn't seem to do well among white people who live in states which are overwhelmingly white.
Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
Florida's not enough for Trump. Trump's do-minimum to win the presidency is to take every Romney state plus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I am assuming that several more-winnable states for Romney are harder for Trump, like Virginia.
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
Originally I thought Trump would have a decent chance in Wisconsin and Minnesota: both still quite white states, and have been trending slightly Republican of late. Picking up one or both of them could've offset a failure to pick some of the more ethnically-diverse states like Virginia or Colorado.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Trump doesn't seem to do well among white people who live in states which are overwhelmingly white.
Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
Maybe because they tend to be a lot wealthier.
I'm sure the wealthy Republicans in states like Georgia voted for Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Carson, anyone! Stereotypically, I am thinking of regular churchgoers in the suburbs. Boss Hogg voted for the Don.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Lynton is a bit of a one-trick pony, the trick in question being "Let's Be A Bit Racist". Identify a group and go "ew" a lot, whether it's Eastern Europeans (2005), Europe (2009), or Scots (2015). I assume adopting a similar technique for London 2016 (Muslims!) failed because there are enough Muslims in London to render the attack blunt.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Lynton is a bit of a one-trick pony, the trick in question being "Let's Be A Bit Racist". Identify a group and go "ew" a lot, whether it's Eastern Europeans (2005), Europe (2009), or Scots (2015). I assume adopting a similar technique for London 2016 (Muslims!) failed because there are enough Muslims in London to render the attack blunt.
Sir Lynton Crosby knows London well enough to have won there in 2008 and 2012 without any of the tactics you mention above.
Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.
Not that Lynton Crosby is exactly a nice, polite fellow either, Khan won by ruthlessly destroying Zac as inexperienced and out of touch, he won, he may not be particularly pleasant but he does know how to win a campaign and managed to successfully rebuff the Crosby attacks on him
Lynton is a bit of a one-trick pony, the trick in question being "Let's Be A Bit Racist". Identify a group and go "ew" a lot, whether it's Eastern Europeans (2005), Europe (2009), or Scots (2015). I assume adopting a similar technique for London 2016 (Muslims!) failed because there are enough Muslims in London to render the attack blunt.
Sir Lynton Crosby knows London well enough to have won there in 2008 and 2012 without any of the tactics you mention above.
Unfortunately I can't remember the 2008 and 2012 campaigns well enough to gainsay you. However I can remember UK 2015. It was hardly subtle, was it?
Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name, and the obvious suggestion of the Tory attacks was that this should be enough for Khan to be treated with more suspicion than white people in the same position.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name and thus should be treated with more suspicion as a result.
Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?
This page is intriguing. While not wishing to vest too much faith in early polling, it suggests that while Trump is in range in certain swing states like Florida and Ohio, he is doing worse than expected in several Romney states, and that could undermine the business of building up electoral votes from popular votes. I don't know how to put this most forcefully, but he ought to be leading in at least one poll in Utah.
The euphemism is asymmetric realignment; he hasn't struck deep into Obama territory the way Clinton has in some Romney states. We aren't seeing narrow Trump leads in Minnesota, Maine or New Jersey.
I expect Trump to consolidate Republican public support now that the primaries are over. He may not. And one would have to acknowledge that by this logic, Clinton may consolidate further Democratic support when her primaries end.
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name and thus should be treated with more suspicion as a result.
Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?
Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name, and the obvious suggestion of the Tory attacks was that this should be enough for Khan to be treated with more suspicion than white people in the same position.
In the end, it was actually that simple, wasn't it? "LOOK! MUSLIM! EW!" Ah, the marketplace of ideas...:-)
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name and thus should be treated with more suspicion as a result.
Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?
Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
Wrong in terms of the way you view it, but do you think there is a truth in what I say about the Tories objective?
I genuinely believe the Tory Party as it is currently led is by people who see themselves as One Nation Tories, so I would disagree.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
Dave was happy to parrot the Goldsmith line at PMQ and made inaccurate, misleading claims about Khan. He still has not congratulated him on his win.
Dave's not conducted himself very well over this.
All that was asked was for Khan to justify his dodgy relationships.
Yeah, just like all that was asked of Obama was to produce his birth certificate. Just as the strapline of how Simon Hughes was the "straight choice" against Peter Tatchell was an innocent attempt to clarify who the main contenders were. Just as the hard-lefties who rant on about "Zionist conspiracies" are merely expressing points of difference on Israeli government policy.
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
But the Tories would (and have) done the same with a non Muslim white with links to similarly dubious characters.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Except many Tories. including Goldsmith himself, did have exactly the same "links" to these dubious characters (the "links" being happening to be at a couple of the same events as them).
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name and thus should be treated with more suspicion as a result.
Did Goldsmith suggest there were too many whites in TFL? That muslims were Uncle Toms?
Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
Who was he talking about? Millwall supporters?
Don't keep fighting this battle. The evidence is that under scrutiny, this tactic whips up more defiance than complaisance.
Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.
Maybe Gordon MacDonald is a particularly good constituency MP.
Comments
Now actually the fact is that it has to be decided by the EASA which is the EU plus the EFTA countries. But no one seems to be paying much attention to this at the moment and are just saying it is 'the EU'.
So whilst I am annoyed that the CAA does not have the authority to produce a permanent ban, the impression I get at the moment is that the lack of clarity by they CAA has helped Leave gain a little more support.
My opening line in the piece is
"As a Muslim I was appalled at Goldsmith's campaign, as a Tory I'm appalled that Goldsmith's campaign makes Corbyn as PM more likely."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoLSbhiDMI
The guy's already won the nomination, but there's absolutely no let up in the pace... two or three meetings a day.
What a man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JTtI3D6lqk
"You only wake the President in two circumstances: World War Three, or if 'Hellcats of the Navy' is on TV..."
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/
Clinton has been very strong among black voters this year, correct?
In 2015, we got the result people thinking we'd get in 2010, a small Tory majority, in 2020 will see the result people were expecting in 2015, a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party.
Hillary will not take anything close to the percentage won by Obama.
What was interesting in the primaries were that the states Hillary was winning were the states trump did well in, but obviously you aren't comparing apples with apples.
The opposition (Clinton) is haggard, tired and backward-looking, mired in scandals.
Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate for change.
Death will result from complications brought on by the condition such as a heart attack, strokes, lung infections, kidney failure etc.
Probably a bigger achievement than the Tories finishing ahead of Labour in Scotland
We can play silly buggers and try to say how technically something isn't offensive, but the undertones of all those attacks are/were pretty obvious, just as they were pretty obvious when Sadiq Khan was labelled "divisive" and "a threat" and asked to justify his "links".
Goldwater was 50 years ago. No internet. Or even Colour TV.
And a country still reeling from probably its greatest political tragedy, seeking stability and continuity, as best it could.
And Trump is no Goldwater, anyhow.
Trump is Trump. No-one else.
Like no other candidate ever in US history... [perhaps Huey Long comes closest, but he never got as far as a POTUS run]
He needs to do this while not unnecessarily losing Romney states in which Hillary has led in some polls, like North Carolina, Arizona, ... and, erm, Utah. Or states where she polled just behind Trump, like Georgia and Mississippi.
However, his dismal primary results in both states suggest it's now out of the question.
Khan will be there for 4 years whatever they say. If he introduces sharia law and opens an ISIS recruiting office, they will have plenty of time to point it out; if he doesn't and is just a normal mayor, the continued warnings will look somewhere between stupid and poor losers. Why don't they either congratulate him with good grace or, if they can't bear to do that, just STFU?
Good news for Trump in today's Georgia poll; he leads Clinton by 1. It was a Clinton state in 1992. Oh, and Romney won it by 8 points.
It isn't representative and often feels barely part of it.
When people witter on about how bad the EU referendum result will be for the City most of the country says, "so what, they're greedy bastards anyway, let them suffer."
London is an example of how awful Britain could become in many perceptions.
So whatever it was, it wasn't racist.
Interesting result in Pentlands the tory vote hardly went up and the Labour vote only fell about 2-3 % why is this so different when this used to be one of the tories safest seats.
The only difference between those tories and Khan, was that Khan has a brown face and a foreign-sounding name, and the obvious suggestion of the Tory attacks was that this should be enough for Khan to be treated with more suspicion than white people in the same position.
This page is intriguing. While not wishing to vest too much faith in early polling, it suggests that while Trump is in range in certain swing states like Florida and Ohio, he is doing worse than expected in several Romney states, and that could undermine the business of building up electoral votes from popular votes. I don't know how to put this most forcefully, but he ought to be leading in at least one poll in Utah.
The euphemism is asymmetric realignment; he hasn't struck deep into Obama territory the way Clinton has in some Romney states. We aren't seeing narrow Trump leads in Minnesota, Maine or New Jersey.
I expect Trump to consolidate Republican public support now that the primaries are over. He may not. And one would have to acknowledge that by this logic, Clinton may consolidate further Democratic support when her primaries end.
Early days, though, admittedly...