One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.
The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
No, but getting a bounce means that he's pulling in new support, presumably from swing voters of one nature or another. And all voters can see a mismanaged convention with accusations of plagarism and a failure to secure the endorsement of his nearest rival. It wasn't a great advert for the GOP.
Why presumably from swing voters? Most of the electorate does not focus on the campaign until late in the campaign, including each party's support base. The Conventions always are the true beginning of the campaigns, so there will be many voters who would naturally support a populist tuning in for the first time.
Frankly, I am bemused about the whole plagiarism thing in politics, and I suspect most of the population is. As someone whose entire career has either been in diplomacy or advocacy, I'm over the moon when someone 'steals' my ideas or adopts my words.
Why on earth should we be upset if a politician 'steals' a meme? And why so wrapped up about whose words they are, given that we know most politicians speeches are always some else's words. So we being upset about which some else's words now?
This election is about raw emotions, not clever policies, slick presentations, slick stage management, or whose clever words are spoken. it's time the political commentariat understood this.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
I wouldn't call 2008/9 the great recession...... It was merely the beginning of a whole set of structural changes that will take the next 40 years to play out....
People thinking that Hillary has a demographic firewall should bear in mind that the best she can do is hold on to the bigs leads she enjoys with those groups. This is as good as it gets for her. Trump only needs to chip away at her totals and she could still win big with blacks but not by enough to save her.
The NYT had a good simulator a while ago which showed that Trump could win overall just by reducing Clinton's leads with blacks and hispanics.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
The politics of this has a lot of elements without recent precedent, so it's quite hard to read. Giving up trying to read the politics and just looking at the polling, this is not a particularly tight race. It's a race where once candidate has a reasonably consistent lead, and the other one just got a convention bounce.
I think the upshot is that the markets know what they're doing: There's a strong favourite, but not so strong that an upset would be weird.
I think that's right, although it's worth pointing out that the polls seemed to be moving towards Trump before the convention. So, that reasonably consistent lead is looking a bit less consistent now.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
"George Osborne’s emergency Budget was a case in point: With just a week to go before the vote, and with Leave appearing to be in the lead, the then-chancellor issued a warning saying he would be forced to increase taxes and cut public spending if Britain voted to Leave the EU.
Stronger In had hoped this warning would dominate radio and TV coverage for 24 hours, convincing voters who were terrified by the prospect of tax hikes.
But shortly before going on the Today programme to discuss the idea, the chancellor was ambushed with a letter signed by 57 Tory MPs saying they would refuse to back such a proposal, completely undermining his authority and changing the story into an internal Conservative dispute with very different headlines."
On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
Wow
"Much the best choice is surely deeper integration. The main blockages to securing deeper integration are: (a) Scepticism amongst populations that more powers will be used well — That one just has to be faced down and proven wrong by getting the powers and using them well. The idea of “taking populations with you” or “proceeding slowly, at a pace populations can accept” are non-starters in the current political environment. The current power mix is one of impotence and failure. The longer the EU fails, the less populations are going to believe it could succeed."
Does the author propose to abolish democracy, or just suspend it for a decade or so?
On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
Did you mean 'what they need is more Europe'?
I meant exactly what I wrote . I appreciate that some Leavers see themselves as Samson bringing down the EU temple. I'm not one of them. We need to have a wealthy, stable and sensible EU as our neighbour. They have to crack on.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
From crosstabs it appara that Trump's support is more likely to be not registered to vote. He will need a big registration campaign to get the headline figures.
Evidence? The only figures are the favourability ratings and Trump does better among registered voters (-5) than among all Americans (-9). All the other questions are for registered voters only.
Looking at the wrong poll! Somehow got a primary poll come up. Will need to wait to see comparisons but he's likely to be less like the normal Republican, aiming at non voters.
The politics of this has a lot of elements without recent precedent, so it's quite hard to read. Giving up trying to read the politics and just looking at the polling, this is not a particularly tight race. It's a race where once candidate has a reasonably consistent lead, and the other one just got a convention bounce.
I think the upshot is that the markets know what they're doing: There's a strong favourite, but not so strong that an upset would be weird.
I think that's right, although it's worth pointing out that the polls seemed to be moving towards Trump before the convention. So, that reasonably consistent lead is looking a bit less consistent now.
Whistlestop tour of
Vigo County, Indiana Ottawa County, Ohio Bexar County, Texas Hidalgo County, New Mexico Wood County, Ohio Stanislaus County, California Merced County, California Hillsborough County, Florida Chautauqua County, New York
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
Wow
"Much the best choice is surely deeper integration. The main blockages to securing deeper integration are: (a) Scepticism amongst populations that more powers will be used well — That one just has to be faced down and proven wrong by getting the powers and using them well. The idea of “taking populations with you” or “proceeding slowly, at a pace populations can accept” are non-starters in the current political environment. The current power mix is one of impotence and failure. The longer the EU fails, the less populations are going to believe it could succeed."
Does the author propose to abolish democracy, or just suspend it for a decade or so?
Well that is what the EU is essentially all about, so why the fuss?
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
Perhaps people just actually bought the message? Niall Ferguson was writing in ST yesterday about a historical "paranoid" streak that exists in America i.e. things 'aint what they used to be and it's all the fault of THEM (usually in conspiracy with the monied elite).
Oh indeed. No-one does witchhunts like the Americans. Not in apparently open, democratic countries anyway.
its because it's such a big (a continent), diverse country with many media outlets you need a succient, headline grabbing message which Trump gets and has got down to a tee.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
It's funny (both peculiar and hilarious in this case). The impression I had during the referendum campaign was that Remain had the slick professional operation and Leave were the amateurs. The more I read now the more the opposite seems to be true.
On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
Wow
"Much the best choice is surely deeper integration. The main blockages to securing deeper integration are: (a) Scepticism amongst populations that more powers will be used well — That one just has to be faced down and proven wrong by getting the powers and using them well. The idea of “taking populations with you” or “proceeding slowly, at a pace populations can accept” are non-starters in the current political environment. The current power mix is one of impotence and failure. The longer the EU fails, the less populations are going to believe it could succeed."
Does the author propose to abolish democracy, or just suspend it for a decade or so?
Well that is what the EU is essentially all about, so why the fuss?
It's a bit late to start worrying about democracy. The Eurozone countries signed up for EMU, whether they realised it or not. You can't be half in, half out. You always have to go full emu .
I know that Trump is currently being creamed in those demographics, but listen to his own analysis of his overall strategy. Do what you have to do to win each stage of the campaign and to kill off each competitor, one at a time. Adjust your strategy as you progress through that process to address the new challenges of the new stage.
Trump knows he has to address his bad numbers in at least the Latino demographic (less so the Black demo). he has explicitly stated as much, and he has a few months to work on it. While you and I would agree he has set himself a Herculean task to undo the damage he has done, you have to admit that he has been very effective in executing his strategy thus far and thus we should admit that he might know what he is doing and he might actually be aware of his capabilities.
Scary, but too many have dismissed him and his abilities to their detriment already.
True. As previously observed by that analyst (whose name I forget), Trump's OODA loop - orient, observe, decide, act - is faster than the others: by the time the opposition works out how to cope with the shit he's flinging, he's flinging different shit. He is winning this and not that many people have noticed.
In retrospect, that was so evident in the GOP primaries. The poor buggers had no idea of what was going on ...
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Hillary Clinton is in danger of making the same mistakes as the Remain campaign.
And then some.
It seems to be a feature of the established politician parties in the West that they fail to see that the policies that horrify them actually are quite popular with a lot of voters.
The only way to compete with it is to offer their own proposed solutions to them, not to smear the voters that have the concerns as haters and fear-filled (which is what they are doing with ads like this, even if they don't realise it - which is yet another symptom of their disconnect problem)
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
It's funny (both peculiar and hilarious in this case). The impression I had during the referendum campaign was that Remain had the slick professional operation and Leave were the amateurs. The more I read now the more the opposite seems to be true.
Up until the later days of the campaign, there were people trying to claim a similar argument about 2015. In that case, the Labour wheels fell off their wacky racer before the finish line.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
also the mood in America is for change against the status quo.
On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
Did you mean 'what they need is more Europe'?
I meant exactly what I wrote . I appreciate that some Leavers see themselves as Samson bringing down the EU temple. I'm not one of them. We need to have a wealthy, stable and sensible EU as our neighbour. They have to crack on.
I absolutely get (and got before my tease) what you are saying. I just hope that the EU also gets that 'we' also need a strong UK.
The politics of this has a lot of elements without recent precedent, so it's quite hard to read. Giving up trying to read the politics and just looking at the polling, this is not a particularly tight race. It's a race where once candidate has a reasonably consistent lead, and the other one just got a convention bounce.
I think the upshot is that the markets know what they're doing: There's a strong favourite, but not so strong that an upset would be weird.
I think that's right, although it's worth pointing out that the polls seemed to be moving towards Trump before the convention. So, that reasonably consistent lead is looking a bit less consistent now.
I'd be betting on the likely evolution of the campaign.
So far, I see no sign that Hillary gets it and is basically relying on demographics in the right swing states to carry her home through the electoral college.
That might hold, but it's putting an awful lot of eggs in one basket.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
It's all about the "ground game" dontcha Know?
Yep. The list of posters whose pontifications on such matters should be consigned to the bin has got quite long since last May.
We've taken the approach of treating Russia like a naughty schoolboy ever since Putin first rose to power. It's not working and is not in our interests.
What it looks like is PR for war. And for NATO, which is related.
I don't take any article seriously that talks of the Baltic states' security interests without accepting that Russia has legitimate security interests in Kaliningrad. There will either be cooperation or war, and I don't fancy the chances for cooperation.
Most who reel off the phrase "Gerasimov doctrine" or who talk of Russian "hybrid warfare" haven't read Valery Gerasimov - chief of the Russian general staff - and they are unaware of the importance he ascribes to the western effort labelled the "Arab Spring".
The sides interpenetrate a lot (hello Wikileaks, hello Edward Snowden). NATO is way behind in morale both on the home front, and, in a number of NATO members at least, in the armed forces too. Perhaps the idea with Trump is to do something about that; I dunno.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
Perhaps people just actually bought the message? Niall Ferguson was writing in ST yesterday about a historical "paranoid" streak that exists in America i.e. things 'aint what they used to be and it's all the fault of THEM (usually in conspiracy with the monied elite).
Oh indeed. No-one does witchhunts like the Americans. Not in apparently open, democratic countries anyway.
As a US novellist said the other day (I forget who), the trouble with witch hunts is they rarely stop at one witch.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.
The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
Don't be daft. Of course I have no difficulty understanding that, which is why I consistently make money from political betting. My point was, of course, that the convention itself was an absolute shambles. Mind you, it looks as though the Dem one will also be a shambles.
Lyin' Ted was planned, the RNC knew he was going to speak and had his speech three days in advance. That benfitted Trump like THAT poster benifiited Leave as much as I hate to admit it, and hated it.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.
The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
No, but getting a bounce means that he's pulling in new support, presumably from swing voters of one nature or another. And all voters can see a mismanaged convention with accusations of plagarism and a failure to secure the endorsement of his nearest rival. It wasn't a great advert for the GOP.
If voters hold the GOP establishment in the same level of contempt that Trump does, then a convention that showcases that wouldn't necessarily harm Trump at all.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Bit of a shame they didn't have the same access to an all expenses paid country wide leaflet drop. Even with that , remain still managed to feck it up. Two things probably sealed it in the end though....
1) don't bring in a foreign leader to threaten your own electorate 2) don't threaten the electorate with emergency budgets.
It's the two points I heard talked about the most particularly the first one which seemed to attract the most " up yours" type vote.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
The Remain campaign was run by an actuary - no emotion in the campaign and basically when the public realised that the Government was spending £9 million taxpayer money to promote Remain then remain lost any emotional support and basically people didn't believe them afterwards.
The people who promoted Remain could have written the first part of "The Woman in Black" - at the theatre.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
A confused post, for two reasons. Firstly there were two distinct Leave campaigns, of which one had the £350million (an accurate estimate in my book, but one they utterly failed to defend with any capability), and Turkey, and the other of which had the poster. Secondly, it's unclear whether you're speaking about effectiveness or ethical standards. I was talking about effectiveness, or lack of in the case of Vote Leave. Leave.EU was, for the most part, quite effective imo.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
To be honest, most political campaigns were forever thus.
Strategists will always ditch intellectual integrity for what harvests them the most votes.
Both sides do this, so I don't think more blame can be placed at the feet of either Leave or Remain, albeit Leave will naturally cop more flak for it simply because they actually won.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
I don't think it's fair to pin that on Merkel. If anyone in the West was guilty of over-exuberance it was the State Department and Victoria Nuland.
Merkel's always been quite sceptical of EU enlargement and has, for example, pushed the Balkan states quite hard that they need to reform before joining rather than afterwards.
A non rhetorical question. Do Americans view their presidency like Britons viewed the EU ? Only a tiny minority of Britons like me ever loved the EU. Loads neither knew or cared much about it. It's much easier to run a protest vote campaign or reframe a referendum if a chunk of voters don't about it's subject. Are there a group of US voters who don't care who's president and thus prepared to cast a 'blow up the world ' protest vote. Given the fact it's technically possible the US President could blow up the world ? Genuine question for US posters.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
I agree with that sentiment Max - but think it is more because of the underlying issues that professional politicians have tried to paper over rather than tackle; Dislocation, cultural disintregration, inequality of opportunity, the failure of globalisation etc
To be honest, I think I could probably repost my 'why Leave isn't getting trounced' posts, changing a few words, party names and leading characters, for 'why Trump isn't getting trounced'.
I called Leave, and I stick by my April call: Trump having a 55% chance of beating Hilary.
McTernan has said Clinton will win and that is the Kiss of Death, Trump is sure to win now.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
I hadn't realised that that was what the US and UK did.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
I think Merkel sometimes acts under immense influence from the US (it should not be forgotten that Germany is still officially an enemy of the allies and can be legally invaded at any time), sometimes off her own bat - such as with Hollande regarding the Minsk process, where the US was notably excluded. She seems quite a sensible woman.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in effect at the national level? Our basic physical needs are sufficiently met that they are no longer the main motivator? Where are we at as a nation?
Physiological needs met? Check Safety needs met? Effectively, yes, although some might quibble. Check Love and belonging? Tribes seem well established. Probably check. Esteem? Black Lives Matter working on this but other demos seem chill. Check-ish. Self-acutalization? Seems where most people's heads are at ... Maybe explains the 'post-truth' nature of politics. The important truths now are internal, not external.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
The Remain campaign was run by an actuary - no emotion in the campaign and basically when the public realised that the Government was spending £9 million taxpayer money to promote Remain then remain lost any emotional support and basically people didn't believe them afterwards.
The people who promoted Remain could have written the first part of "The Woman in Black" - at the theatre.
It would have been pretty hard to inject emotion into it. We love Europe in the UK, but have never had any great love of EU institutions.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
That's a very astute observation. Remain were fighting the campaign with the tactics of the pre-2008 era, assuming economics trumped all else.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
A confused post, for two reasons. Firstly there were two distinct Leave campaigns, of which one had the £350million (an accurate estimate in my book, but one they utterly failed to defend with any capability), and Turkey, and the other of which had the poster. Secondly, it's unclear whether you're speaking about effectiveness or ethical standards. I was talking about effectiveness, or lack of in the case of Vote Leave. Leave.EU was, for the most part, quite effective imo.
Fair point. I was being lazy. My point was based on ethics. In terms of effectiveness, it's hard to determine which of the Leave campaigns carried the day. I can't believe that I'm alone in thinking very early on that they were all ghastly, ghastly liars, ignored them all and made my own decision.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in effect at the national level? Our basic physical needs are sufficiently met that they are no longer the main motivator? Where are we at as a nation?
Physiological needs met? Check Safety needs met? Effectively, yes, although some might quibble. Check Love and belonging? Tribes seem well established. Probably check. Esteem? Black Lives Matter working on this but other demos seem chill. Check-ish. Self-acutalization? Seems where most people's heads are at ... Maybe explains the 'post-truth' nature of politics. The important truths now are internal, not external.
Sky has now tuned into DNCLeaks fall-out. Golly, Sanders fans are understandably immensely pissed off.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Because the era of American non-interventionism in the first half of the 20th century saw the rest of the world doing just fine?
We need a Betfair Impeachment market. There must be a decent chance whoever wins, Clinton or Trump, will be impeached after the 2018 midterms.
My wife and I are making up bumper stickers saying "Vote Trump! He'll be easier to impeach"
Shows the bizarre state of US politics really where you consider before the oath is even taken the potential of a betting market as to which of the two candidates will be the first to be impeached.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Puzzled by this. If you were reading this site, you were being told every day how dreadful the Vote Leave campaign was and how wonderful the Vote Remain campaign was.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
No. The Vote Leave campaign was shit. And I supported Leave. Getting information is great - what you do with that information is what counts.
Both campaigns were utter shit. Remain had the £4,300, the punishment budget, 'Little Englanders' and 'Back of the queue'. Leave had £350 million, Turkey, 'breaking point' poster and no clue what Brexit actually meant.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely .
A confused post, for two reasons. Firstly there were two distinct Leave campaigns, of which one had the £350million (an accurate estimate in my book, but one they utterly failed to defend with any capability), and Turkey, and the other of which had the poster. Secondly, it's unclear whether you're speaking about effectiveness or ethical standards. I was talking about effectiveness, or lack of in the case of Vote Leave. Leave.EU was, for the most part, quite effective imo.
Fair point. I was being lazy. My point was based on ethics. In terms of effectiveness, it's hard to determine which of the Leave campaigns carried the day. I can't believe that I'm alone in thinking very early on that they were all ghastly, ghastly liars, ignored them all and made my own decision.
Oh, there I agree. And probably very few of the Leave campaign even wanted to win!
My mind was made up before the idea of a referendum was even a cunning wheeze in David Cameron's post-pub lunch brain.
A non rhetorical question. Do Americans view their presidency like Britons viewed the EU ? Only a tiny minority of Britons like me ever loved the EU. Loads neither knew or cared much about it. It's much easier to run a protest vote campaign or reframe a referendum if a chunk of voters don't about it's subject. Are there a group of US voters who don't care who's president and thus prepared to cast a 'blow up the world ' protest vote. Given the fact it's technically possible the US President could blow up the world ? Genuine question for US posters.
US voters are of course not a monolithic block. But in general, Big Government is strongly disliked (except in those instances where the individual personally benefits) as a principle by pretty much everyone except self-identifying liberals (US sense of word).
A standard joke that pretty much everyone gets, even if they are liberal, is "I am from the government and I'm here to help" Perhaps that gives you an idea of the mindset.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
I hadn't realised that that was what the US and UK did.
Fantasy , they wrung their hands and Ukraine is the shambles we see now.
Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.
in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.
If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.
Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
Putin preferred Leave because the UK is the US's 'man on the inside' of the EU. Hence the US doing everything it could to keep us in. Without the UK's influence, it is highly likely that Germany and France will adopt a more concilliatory approach to Russia, possibly in the end forming an alliance.
Wasn't it Merkel who geed up Ukraine re the possibility of looking west for succour rather than east? That went well didn't it.
Then again it was also Merkel who didn't want sanctions on Russia. She wanted to play the game but when Putin upped the stakes it was left to the UK and US to bail her out. Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
Merkel is venerated in the UK as sort of the personification of effective and efficient German statecraft, and skilled at international diplomacy.
As Russia, Syria, Brexit, Greece and the EU have shown, she's actually quite crap, but she looks and acts very competent whilst doing it.
Merkel has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she can't play the foreign policy game.
She's the number one interlocuteur in Europe for Obama and in the West for Putin. Prior to the recent migration crisis she managed to oversee the rise of Germany and loss of influence of France in Europe without causing too much pushback.
She's made more mistakes recently, but you're underestimating her somewhat.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Because the era of American non-interventionism in the first half of the 20th century saw the rest of the world doing just fine?
If that was non-interventionism, I'd hate to see the opposite.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in effect at the national level? Our basic physical needs are sufficiently met that they are no longer the main motivator? Where are we at as a nation?
Physiological needs met? Check Safety needs met? Effectively, yes, although some might quibble. Check Love and belonging? Tribes seem well established. Probably check. Esteem? Black Lives Matter working on this but other demos seem chill. Check-ish. Self-acutalization? Seems where most people's heads are at ... Maybe explains the 'post-truth' nature of politics. The important truths now are internal, not external.
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Because the era of American non-interventionism in the first half of the 20th century saw the rest of the world doing just fine?
If that was non-interventionism, I'd hate to see the opposite.
I am genuinely interested as to what you mean by that.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Because the era of American non-interventionism in the first half of the 20th century saw the rest of the world doing just fine?
The first half of the 20th century was the period when the US rose from being a regional power to being a global superpower. To characterise it as an era of non-interventionism is stretching things.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
Yes, and the slogan 'We're better than this' is dire because it can be read as an elitist sneer at anyone who thinks Trump has a point.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the
Each
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in effect at the national level? Our basic physical needs are sufficiently met that they are no longer the main motivator? Where are we at as a nation?
Physiological needs met? Check Safety needs met? Effectively, yes, although some might quibble. Check Love and belonging? Tribes seem well established. Probably check. Esteem? Black Lives Matter working on this but other demos seem chill. Check-ish. Self-acutalization? Seems where most people's heads are at ... Maybe explains the 'post-truth' nature of politics. The important truths now are internal, not external.
Well, another strand to that is that voters may be better at forward projecting the future impact of social change that they are at economic change.
If you think you may be culturally compromised in 20-30 years time - in other words, you might move from a majority demographic group to a minority one, and are already witnessed what you feel are the effects of that - you might easily be willing to accept a 5% cut in your overall net worth if you feel that's the price of preventing that.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
I was wondering where my Hashta gland was for a moment there.
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
It doesn't horrify me in the slightest. The world got on fine before they started sticking their oar into everything - I dare say it will continue to do so afterwards.
Because the era of American non-interventionism in the first half of the 20th century saw the rest of the world doing just fine?
The first half of the 20th century was the period when the US rose from being a regional power to being a global superpower. To characterise it as an era of non-interventionism is stretching things.
... but it was only in the last ten years of that period that they really intervened (and by then ... )
I know "first half" covers a multitude of sins, but would you argue with, say the first third?
Looking at some Sanders supporters' reactions, some of it is justifying based on true breaking of rules. But most is the feeling that somehow the DNC coming out to bat for their preferred candidate was underhand, which in British politics it would not be. I don't feel cheesed off that, for example, the Tory establishment backed Goldsmith in what was supposed to be a primary race (to the detriment of my preferred candidate).
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
Define quite hard. It most states, you can register on line, at government offices, at food stamp offices and at military offices. Levels of proof vary from a simply signature declaring the statements made on the registration form as true, to requiring either photo ID or birth certificate.
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
That's a very astute observation. Remain were fighting the campaign with the tactics of the pre-2008 era, assuming economics trumped all else.
Thanks. Yes, and they admitted as such: the assumption at the core of their campaign was that, when the chips were down, people would always vote on the economics above all else.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
Define quite hard. It most states, you can register on line, at government offices, at food stamp offices and at military offices. Levels of proof vary from a simply signature declaring the statements made on the registration form as true, to requiring either photo ID or birth certificate.
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
Wikipedia has a handy list of (mostly) Republican voter suppression activities in the US.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
Define quite hard. It most states, you can register on line, at government offices, at food stamp offices and at military offices. Levels of proof vary from a simply signature declaring the statements made on the registration form as true, to requiring either photo ID or birth certificate.
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
Is registering to vote in US states a legal requirement as it is in the UK (albeit one frequently ignored)?
That's fascinating. My biggest misjudgement on the Referendum was not getting " Take back Control " which I thought was a bonkers slogan. I thought voters were more focused than ever at the bottom of Maslow's Heirarchy. As ' Control ' is an abstract I assumed that Remain's focus on security and wealth would scrape through. But reading the post mortems it seems for too many people control is at the bottom of Maslow. It's the lack of ' Control ' that they blame for the needs at the bottom of the Heirarchy not being met.
Though your formulation is another fascinating possibility.
Actually, the Control issue might be seen as an Esteem issue. Maybe that is the level the UK electorate is at.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
Yes, and the slogan 'We're better than this' is dire because it can be read as an elitist sneer at anyone who thinks Trump has a point.
Almost as bad as "I'm with Her" (rather than "She's for us")
Turnout in the US 2012 Presidential Election was 54.9%; there's a lot of room for that to increase. In the UK, Leave won by getting out people who rarely or never vote, and the polls missed them and failed to predict the result.
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Trump is unashamedly pitching himself as an Alpha candidate for standing up for US interests.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
You can argue that he's merely returning the USA to it's default inter-war position, with a dash of the Monroe doctrine for flavour.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
I was wondering where my Hashta gland was for a moment there.
Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
Don't forget in many US states it can be quite hard to register to vote - ironically mostly due to Republican attempts to disenfranchise poor voters assumed to lean Democrat.
Define quite hard. It most states, you can register on line, at government offices, at food stamp offices and at military offices. Levels of proof vary from a simply signature declaring the statements made on the registration form as true, to requiring either photo ID or birth certificate.
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
Is registering to vote in US states a legal requirement as it is in the UK (albeit one frequently ignored)?
No, but making it a legal requirement has no bearing on whether the process of registration is easy or hard.
If I recollect correctly about Ukraine It was the EU that had pretensions in that area and basically overstepped the mark. The Russians reaction should not have been unexpected. The earlier Russian encroachment into a supposed neutral area (Crimea) are all small steps, one little bite at a time but it does remind me of the mid 1930'. They even use the same excuse that they were invited in to safeguard certain sections of the populace
My one main concern is not how a trump deals with Russia but how he deals with N.Korea?
That's a far more unpredictable scenario and one where you just might have a lunatic at both ends of the hotline.
One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
I think it all goes back to the Crash.
Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.
Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.
But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.
The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....
Yes, but I think one mistake most established political parties are making is that it's all about economics.
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
I think more precisely, voters didn't believe Brexit would have economic consequences that would affect them personally. That spiked the guns of the Remain campaign. The supposed post-factual era.
Comments
Trump has maintained & improved his lead on handling the economy & now leads Hillary 54% to 43%.
He also leads on handling Terrorism by 53% to 42%.
He's only behind on handling Foreign Affairs by 45% to 50%, which is still a massive improvement from 36% to 61% in the May 2016 poll.
I think voters' perceptions on handling the economy will be a lot more influential in determining their final voting decision.
Frankly, I am bemused about the whole plagiarism thing in politics, and I suspect most of the population is. As someone whose entire career has either been in diplomacy or advocacy, I'm over the moon when someone 'steals' my ideas or adopts my words.
Why on earth should we be upset if a politician 'steals' a meme? And why so wrapped up about whose words they are, given that we know most politicians speeches are always some else's words. So we being upset about which some else's words now?
This election is about raw emotions, not clever policies, slick presentations, slick stage management, or whose clever words are spoken. it's time the political commentariat understood this.
The NYT had a good simulator a while ago which showed that Trump could win overall just by reducing Clinton's leads with blacks and hispanics.
Vote Leave Used A Really Simple Trick To See All Remain’s Announcements In Advance
“From day three we managed to get onto their press list by using the fact they’d tweeted out a link to their Mailchimp [mailing list management service] account, which anyone could do,” said the Vote Leave source. “We signed up about three accounts in the end.”
Has anyone seen Andy Burnham's spine? If so please ring in as he needs it
"George Osborne’s emergency Budget was a case in point: With just a week to go before the vote, and with Leave appearing to be in the lead, the then-chancellor issued a warning saying he would be forced to increase taxes and cut public spending if Britain voted to Leave the EU.
Stronger In had hoped this warning would dominate radio and TV coverage for 24 hours, convincing voters who were terrified by the prospect of tax hikes.
But shortly before going on the Today programme to discuss the idea, the chancellor was ambushed with a letter signed by 57 Tory MPs saying they would refuse to back such a proposal, completely undermining his authority and changing the story into an internal Conservative dispute with very different headlines."
"Much the best choice is surely deeper integration. The main blockages to securing deeper integration are:
(a) Scepticism amongst populations that more powers will be used well — That one just has to be faced down and proven wrong by getting the powers and using them well. The idea of “taking populations with you” or “proceeding slowly, at a pace populations can accept” are non-starters in the current political environment. The current power mix is one of impotence and failure. The longer the EU fails, the less populations are going to believe it could succeed."
Does the author propose to abolish democracy, or just suspend it for a decade or so?
Vigo County, Indiana
Ottawa County, Ohio
Bexar County, Texas
Hidalgo County, New Mexico
Wood County, Ohio
Stanislaus County, California
Merced County, California
Hillsborough County, Florida
Chautauqua County, New York
Needed
The ultimate establishment candidate is facing the ultimate anti-establishment candidate; clearly the latter is vastly more likely to motivate non-voters.
On the whole I don't think HRC's chance is more than about 55%.
Could it really be, that the posters who kept telling us this were either being untruthful or - even more shocking - had no idea what they were talking about?
Nancy Pelosi at Bloomberg breakfast: "The Russians did hack the DNC. "
Though enjoying the winnings might be another matter...
And then some.
It seems to be a feature of the established politician parties in the West that they fail to see that the policies that horrify them actually are quite popular with a lot of voters.
The only way to compete with it is to offer their own proposed solutions to them, not to smear the voters that have the concerns as haters and fear-filled (which is what they are doing with ads like this, even if they don't realise it - which is yet another symptom of their disconnect problem)
So far, I see no sign that Hillary gets it and is basically relying on demographics in the right swing states to carry her home through the electoral college.
That might hold, but it's putting an awful lot of eggs in one basket.
My wife and I are making up bumper stickers saying "Vote Trump! He'll be easier to impeach"
I don't take any article seriously that talks of the Baltic states' security interests without accepting that Russia has legitimate security interests in Kaliningrad. There will either be cooperation or war, and I don't fancy the chances for cooperation.
Most who reel off the phrase "Gerasimov doctrine" or who talk of Russian "hybrid warfare" haven't read Valery Gerasimov - chief of the Russian general staff - and they are unaware of the importance he ascribes to the western effort labelled the "Arab Spring".
The sides interpenetrate a lot (hello Wikileaks, hello Edward Snowden). NATO is way behind in morale both on the home front, and, in a number of NATO members at least, in the armed forces too. Perhaps the idea with Trump is to do something about that; I dunno.
In fact, it might reinforce his support.
Nobody comes out of it well. Apart from me, I'm lovely
OR
Just as well we played Rashid as well so we've got 5 bowlers given 2 of them are coming back from injury.
1) don't bring in a foreign leader to threaten your own electorate
2) don't threaten the electorate with emergency budgets.
It's the two points I heard talked about the most particularly the first one which seemed to attract the most " up yours" type vote.
DYOR
It isn't. Or, at least, it isn't any more.
A lot of voters in Western countries are now as concerned about social and cultural change as economics, if not more so.
The roots of that probably date back to the late 90s/early 00s in places like the UK and US.
The people who promoted Remain could have written the first part of "The Woman in Black" - at the theatre.
Strategists will always ditch intellectual integrity for what harvests them the most votes.
Both sides do this, so I don't think more blame can be placed at the feet of either Leave or Remain, albeit Leave will naturally cop more flak for it simply because they actually won.
Merkel's always been quite sceptical of EU enlargement and has, for example, pushed the Balkan states quite hard that they need to reform before joining rather than afterwards.
US withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA and very tough border control for Europeans might horrify us, but I suspect it is viewed quite differently by a lot of Americans.
Physiological needs met? Check
Safety needs met? Effectively, yes, although some might quibble. Check
Love and belonging? Tribes seem well established. Probably check.
Esteem? Black Lives Matter working on this but other demos seem chill. Check-ish.
Self-acutalization? Seems where most people's heads are at ... Maybe explains the 'post-truth' nature of politics. The important truths now are internal, not external.
What's your take on it?
And the fact that significant numbers of people did that was a huge net positive for Leave.
My mind was made up before the idea of a referendum was even a cunning wheeze in David Cameron's post-pub lunch brain.
However, Man proposes, God disposes.
A standard joke that pretty much everyone gets, even if they are liberal, is "I am from the government and I'm here to help" Perhaps that gives you an idea of the mindset.
As Russia, Syria, Brexit, Greece and the EU have shown, she's actually quite crap, but she looks and acts very competent whilst doing it.
She's made more mistakes recently, but you're underestimating her somewhat.
The Democrats are making the mistake of sneering at both Trump and his supporters. It might make them feel good in Hashtagland, but the optics are terrible. It's like they're running Trump's GOTV operation on his behalf.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-tied-going-into-democratic-convention/
ISIS have claimed credit - he was found with rolls of E50 notes on him
If you think you may be culturally compromised in 20-30 years time - in other words, you might move from a majority demographic group to a minority one, and are already witnessed what you feel are the effects of that - you might easily be willing to accept a 5% cut in your overall net worth if you feel that's the price of preventing that.
I know "first half" covers a multitude of sins, but would you argue with, say the first third?
Looking at some Sanders supporters' reactions, some of it is justifying based on true breaking of rules. But most is the feeling that somehow the DNC coming out to bat for their preferred candidate was underhand, which in British politics it would not be. I don't feel cheesed off that, for example, the Tory establishment backed Goldsmith in what was supposed to be a primary race (to the detriment of my preferred candidate).
If you have only very marginal interest in voting, I can see these as being viewed as unsurmountable obstacles to registration. But for anyone with a sense of civic duty, hardly 'very hard'.
German Prosecutor:
"We have found no clear link to Islamism"
German Police:" Video on his phone shows him pledging allegiance to ISIS"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
DNC's Wasserman Schulz gave up on speech, booed off stage, escorted out by security. Unlikely she can speech to Convention tonight
Edit
With video
Outgoing DNC chairwoman @DWStweets booed off stage at her own FL delegation breakfast.
https://t.co/OGqHuQyr23
ARU survey of Labour councillors, has Smith on 60%, Corbyn on 28%. For context, this time last year, JC had 25% among councillors.
Almost as bad as "I'm with Her" (rather than "She's for us")
Again, define 'quite hard to register to vote'.
My one main concern is not how a trump deals with Russia but how he deals with N.Korea?
That's a far more unpredictable scenario and one where you just might have a lunatic at both ends of the hotline.