But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Just bear in mind Corbyn is not standing for president, his job as PM is to command a majority in the Commons and pass laws.
The claim of not a real Muslim is so predictable it is a given, along with lone wolf, mental health illness, poor disaffected, fear of backlash & nothing to do with Islam.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
The claim of not a real Muslim is so predictable it is a given, along with lone wolf, mental health illness, poor disaffected, fear of backlash & nothing to do with Islam.
A lot of this is propaganda aimed at those who might want to be like them. They are insane, they have confused sexuality, they are Muslim-lite. It's all to demotivate, I thought that was obvious (but it's probably based in fact anyway).
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.
They aren't the core, they are entryists.
That is not entirely true. Sure, Hillary is winning big amongst middle-aged women and black voters, but Bernie absolutely dominated young voters who, regardless of poor turnout figures in normal cycles, are part of the core Dem demographic. Bernie also does well with Union types, another core Dem demo. Neither group is entryist.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Smith was pitching to normal voters, not Labour party members. It was probably a mistake to do that.
What Smith can deliver is an effective Parliamentary opposition. He will also engage away from his comfort zone, something Corbyn never does. The views Corbyn holds dear are at best irrelevant to most voters, at worst anathema to them.
Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger. By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college. It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.
Not John Oliver's best effort. Quite funny, but last week tonight standards in ripping the shit are rather high (and much better than th daily show).
Even as an ABT, the relentlessly leftie mocking of the Talk Show hosts is grating rather than funny at this point. Trump is merely an excuse for all of these unfunny (or in Oliver's case, occasionally funny) Luvvies to go on a rant.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.
They aren't the core, they are entryists.
That is not entirely true. Sure, Hillary is winning big amongst middle-aged women and black voters, but Bernie absolutely dominated young voters who, regardless of poor turnout figures in normal cycles, are part of the core Dem demographic. Bernie also does well with Union types, another core Dem demo. Neither group is entryist.
I'm talking about these delegates trying to draw attention to themselves, not primary supporters.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
I don't think that is the case.
Firstly: it is rare to have an absolute majority to take a marginal seat, often 40% will suffice.
Secondly: In a General Election many other issues and loyalties affect the way swing voters choose to swing, not just issues relating to Europe
Thirdly: Jezza is a lukewarm Remainer at best, but the reasons that he objects to Europe are very different to the concerns of the typical Nuneaton or NW Warks voter.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Pilloried by who? Agnew was picked because he was a conservative, Nixon needed a conservative to placate those who voted Reagan, so he chose Agnew in the end even though he wasn't his first choice.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
I live about 20 miles from Nuneaton and can assure you that voters are not crying out for unlimited immigration, the scrapping of Trident and the abolition of the monarchy. Solidarity with Palestine and Cuba is not a pressing issue, while the IRA is generally pretty unpopular.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
The Nuneatons of the U.S. vote GOP anyway. It is the prosperous suburbs the Democrats and Labour need to win to add to the inner cities not white working class small towns and rustbelt, ex industrial areas. UKIP or even the Tories are taking over such areas which are also Trump heartland
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser
Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger. By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college. It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.
The whole DNC email scandal has ripples spreading outwards. It appears the Federal Election Commission may get involved.
Now this is important, the FEC investigating it will make sure the scandal drags for a long time. But from a legal perspective how much can they do ?
Beyond citing one or more DNC members for riding a bicycle without lights, (and making the point that the penalty would have been worse had it been dark), probably not much.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Pilloried by who? Agnew was picked because he was a conservative, Nixon needed a conservative to placate those who voted Reagan, so he chose Agnew in the end even though he wasn't his first choice.
Conservatives wanted Reagan not Agnew and Agnew was a Northeastern Republican not a sunbelt conservative like Reagan, liberals wanted Sanders or Warren this year
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Yes to who then? Johnson?
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
Yes he resigned over a bribery scandal. Otherwise he was the godfather of Dan Quayle
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser
He is also highly intelligent.
He is smart which is not quite the same thing
If I meant smart I would have said smart. He graduated from Wharton - that's intelligent.
Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will we
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-D
Here's how Chris Mullin made the same point back in November in the NS: "What he has to do, and he didn’t do this at the outset in his victory speech, is to address the middle ground. Labour, can’t hope to win an election, merely by mobilising the disaffected. We live in a country that has majority affluence. Labour has to bring with it a swathe of the fortunate as well as the less fortunate. You don’t have to win over every last Daily Mail reader, but you do have to have some."
The author of "A Very British Coup" has now given up on the prospect of Corbyn doing this, and writes: "The clock cannot be turned back. One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
That going on for 4 days, plus the news the F.E.C. may get involved in investigating the scandal, plus all that has already happened.
Hillary was supposed to use the convention to boost her favourables, like Trump and almost every other nominee in modern history did, that does not appear to be happening after all this.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week Hillary will have failed in doing A and B on my list of 3 things that every nominee needs to do in order to win.
A. Pick a VP that makes your internal opposition happy and in line. B. Get a lead out of the conventions. C. Win the debates.
As of right now, Hillary's last chances are the debates, and Trump self-destructing somehow. That's not an insignificant chance, but Trump appears to have the upper hand until the debates.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?
The guy** being interviewed in the park commented that if these people gathering in the park for a protest are from the swing states then Clinton could be in trouble.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?
The guy** being interviewed in the park commented that if these people gathering in the park for a protest are from the swing states then Clinton could be in trouble.
** Guy was wearing a Bernie Sanders T shirt
Most will be from San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and NYC and Burlington and Portland and Seattle which are in strongly Democratic states anyway. Hillary needs to win independents in the Philadelphia and DC and Cleveland and Denver suburbs. They are who she should pitch to on Thursday
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
That going on for 4 days, plus the news the F.E.C. may get involved in investigating the scandal, plus all that has already happened.
Hillary was supposed to use the convention to boost her favourables, like Trump and almost every other nominee in modern history did, that does not appear to be happening after all this.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week Hillary will have failed in doing A and B on my list of 3 things that every nominee needs to do in order to win.
A. Pick a VP that makes your internal opposition happy and in line. B. Get a lead out of the conventions. C. Win the debates.
As of right now, Hillary's last chances are the debates, and Trump self-destructing somehow. That's not an insignificant chance, but Trump appears to have the upper hand until the debates.
I would be surprised - yup, even at this point - if Hillary doesn't get at least a couple of points 'bounce' after her speech on thursday. Don't forget these events are incredibly stage managed to showcase the nominee.
Trump got about a 6 point bounce - much more among independents - after his speech and convention were savaged by the media. They will be much kinder to Hillary.
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Yes to who then? Johnson?
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.
Much of the Corbynite left had no respect whatsoever for the Labour Party until Corbyn took it over. Their loyalty is to the Corbyn cult and if by some miracle he were to be ousted they would cancel their short lived memberships.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!
Owen Smith is talking about what he would do, not Corbyn - he won't win, but his strategy is superior to Hillary Clinton and BSiE
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?
Right now the convention speakers barely mention Hillary at her own convention in order not to be booed off stage.
So I think you may have a point, lets reduce turnout among democrats by 10% in every state Sanders won as a starting point. But looking at the Green party nominee (Stein) as an alternative is not a bad option.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
The godfather of Dan Quayle
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?
Spiro Agnew, "the nattering nabobs of negativism". The most corrupt politician in Baltimore's corrupt history, who by speaking those words made William Safire famous.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
Spent the weekend in Colorado (playong Cards Against Humanity) with a friend of mine who has just been appointed to the National Intelligence Council on the recommendation of the DNC. He's a lovely guy, and incredibly smart...but only 34 and that scares me!
Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger. By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college. It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser
He is also highly intelligent.
He is smart which is not quite the same thing
If I meant smart I would have said smart. He graduated from Wharton - that's intelligent.
I'd agree he is smart as well.
He is intelligent but he is not in Nixon or Clinton's league but then almost no president has been since WW2
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
Don't they always? Ambassadorships are common, I believe. It's a disgrace - at least a knighthood doesn't really mean much.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..." Crowd - "Booooooo!"
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once. The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned. The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though. Humphrey did.
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with Muskie
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.
You may have a point, but it's hard to see where Corbyn and Benn might disagree. Corbyn is basically stuck in 1984.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
TBF Tuttle sold car parts not used cars!
Much more impressive than Barzan - as a Pilgrim I get to meet them all. Barzan's just a merchant banker
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.
Do you think he would be taking the same tack if he was say facing Blair ?
Doubt it - whereas we know Jez would be identical. Most politicians in fact modulate their position vis a vis their opponent, Jez is the exception that proves the rule here.
Sky news in Philly Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Yes to who then? Johnson?
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.
Do the Corbyn left respec their party? hmmm? not so sure.
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
we forget how conservative America is.
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
TBF Tuttle sold car parts not used cars!
Much more impressive than Barzan - as a Pilgrim I get to meet them all. Barzan's just a merchant banker
I was being kind to Tuttle - it's an exclusive group.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
You want to be careful. Farage might win Thanet, and then where might we be?
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
we forget how conservative America is.
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.
I know but many Democrats are very conservative aswell.
Nobody is talking about "blue dawg Democrats" this year.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.
Do you think he would be taking the same tack if he was say facing Blair ?
Doubt it - whereas we know Jez would be identical. Most politicians in fact modulate their position vis a vis their opponent, Jez is the exception that proves the rule here.
I was saying Corbyn does modulate his position though. He sticks to a line more than most, but it's not cast iron, he is, when he feels it necessary, willing to talk in meaningless cliche, to obfuscate, to modulate. The only difference is the level at which he feels he needs to do so, is willing to do so. That makes him different, but only by degree, not by class.
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
we forget how conservative America is.
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.
If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.
Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
we forget how conservative America is.
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.
I know but many Democrats are very conservative aswell.
Nobody is talking about "blue dawg Democrats" this year.
Not that many conservative Dems any more. Obama proved to be the coup de grace on them.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?
But what if they win an additional 10-12 seats?
Look, someone needs to go back and whisper into Daves ear what majority govt would be like. Dave can then take appropriate steps.
Just get whoever spoke to Ed to speak to Dave instead. The Davestone should do it.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.
Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.
Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.
You may have a point, but it's hard to see where Corbyn and Benn might disagree. Corbyn is basically stuck in 1984.
When I wrote that I was mindful that even Chris Mullin thinks that Corbyn must go. He was about as close to Tony Benn as you could get.
I must say, when I posted earlier that I thought the DNC convention was looking as though it would be a shambles, I hadn't expected that it would be a shambles on this Trumpesque, larger-than-life, scale.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Can I second that suggestion.
Please no, I can't handle another GOP debate, 12 were enough.
Comments
He can't do that. It's not in his DNA.
When a Tory does it then your lot call it a massive humiliating U turn.
That is all.
Humphrey did.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
What Smith can deliver is an effective Parliamentary opposition. He will also engage away from his comfort zone, something Corbyn never does. The views Corbyn holds dear are at best irrelevant to most voters, at worst anathema to them.
https://twitter.com/gerryhassan/status/756100026401718272
Lets wait until after the Democratic convention, but so far the convention doesn't look very promising for Hillary.
In fact I think speakers are now avoiding mentioning Hillary to prevent hecklers from disrupting their speeches.
Even as an ABT, the relentlessly leftie mocking of the Talk Show hosts is grating rather than funny at this point. Trump is merely an excuse for all of these unfunny (or in Oliver's case, occasionally funny) Luvvies to go on a rant.
And Corbyn has no chance with those in Nuneaton.
Anyway, goodnight. Hopefully America won't make the world an even more insane place by voting Trump in.
Firstly: it is rare to have an absolute majority to take a marginal seat, often 40% will suffice.
Secondly: In a General Election many other issues and loyalties affect the way swing voters choose to swing, not just issues relating to Europe
Thirdly: Jezza is a lukewarm Remainer at best, but the reasons that he objects to Europe are very different to the concerns of the typical Nuneaton or NW Warks voter.
Agnew was picked because he was a conservative, Nixon needed a conservative to placate those who voted Reagan, so he chose Agnew in the end even though he wasn't his first choice.
But from a legal perspective how much can they do ?
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
http://theweek.com/speedreads/638664/baltimore-mayor-stephanie-rawlingsblake-forgot-actually-gavel-democratic-convention
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/25/germany-is-in-a-dangerous-state-of-denial-about-immigration-isla/
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
"Syrian refugees resettled on remote Scottish island of Bute complain their new home is 'full of old people waiting to die'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/syrian-refugees-resettled-on-remote-scottish-island-of-bute-comp/
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.
I'd agree he is smart as well.
"What he has to do, and he didn’t do this at the outset in his victory speech, is to address the middle ground. Labour, can’t hope to win an election, merely by mobilising the disaffected. We live in a country that has majority affluence. Labour has to bring with it a swathe of the fortunate as well as the less fortunate. You don’t have to win over every last Daily Mail reader, but you do have to have some."
The author of "A Very British Coup" has now given up on the prospect of Corbyn doing this, and writes:
"The clock cannot be turned back. One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
https://profilebooks.com/blog/cat/news/post/why-jeremy-corbyn-must-go-chris-mullin/#.V40Dj0_d_Qo.twitter
Hillary was supposed to use the convention to boost her favourables, like Trump and almost every other nominee in modern history did, that does not appear to be happening after all this.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week Hillary will have failed in doing A and B on my list of 3 things that every nominee needs to do in order to win.
A. Pick a VP that makes your internal opposition happy and in line.
B. Get a lead out of the conventions.
C. Win the debates.
As of right now, Hillary's last chances are the debates, and Trump self-destructing somehow.
That's not an insignificant chance, but Trump appears to have the upper hand until the debates.
** Guy was wearing a Bernie Sanders T shirt
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/
Loads of stuff to do on Bute !
Trump got about a 6 point bounce - much more among independents - after his speech and convention were savaged by the media. They will be much kinder to Hillary.
- should I have posted this anonymously?
So I think you may have a point, lets reduce turnout among democrats by 10% in every state Sanders won as a starting point.
But looking at the Green party nominee (Stein) as an alternative is not a bad option.
US Director of National Intelligence: Both campaigns targetted for a variety of reasons https://t.co/9UBfZFGOSC
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
Much more impressive than Barzan - as a Pilgrim I get to meet them all. Barzan's just a merchant banker
Doubt it - whereas we know Jez would be identical. Most politicians in fact modulate their position vis a vis their opponent, Jez is the exception that proves the rule here.
Views of Clinton and Sanders primary supporters on the issues: https://t.co/r4Pna6BgnK #DemsInPhilly #DemConvention https://t.co/3Ftdjmxdl8
Trump 42, HRC 39
Two candidates only
Trump 45, HRC 45
Nobody is talking about "blue dawg Democrats" this year.
Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.
Blue dog Democrats are mainly a Southern thing.
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/757683629342457861
https://twitter.com/DaviSusan/status/757690868069441536
Just get whoever spoke to Ed to speak to Dave instead. The Davestone should do it.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/748088569063931904
Although I didn't win the PB competition, which was all four competitors, I did come closest to guessing Jeremy's share.