It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
The only reason for saying this would for the MPs or the Lords to block triggering A50. That would be any even bigger constitutionally disturbing/inappropriate act as it would directly override the will of the people in the referendum.
Therefore, the government need to trigger A50 at a time of their choosing. Anything else is an insult to the people's decision.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?
Ohio is more likely Trump after voting restrictions there. Last time 80,000 voted at the same time as registration, and they broke 5-1 for Obama. He only won it by 166k last time.
Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".
Indeed, though all voted for Kerry as well as Obama so I expect Hillary to squeeze home even if Trump wins all the George W Bush 2004 states except Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia (which he may well do)
Of those, if we assume that this election is going to be most effected by the disenfranchised, PA should be The Donald's primary target. NH has been slowly drifting away from the GOP in recent elections.
On 538's current map, Trump needs Florida and one other. That is very doable, and he seems well and truly underpriced in the betting markets at the moment, unless your view is that this is peak Faintgate and that swing back to Hillary is inevitable from this point. I am unconvinced on this last.
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.
Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!
The latest Scottish poll has May far ahe
Major gained 1 seat in 1992 - Aberdeen South - and regained a seat lost to the Libdems at a by election in 1991. Whilst I agree that the Tories could pick up seats from SNP I am sure they are nowhere near 35% - or even 25%. Equally Labour is not on 11%. On Mori's England figures Labour would gain 18 Tory seats.
Certainly May and Davidson are both making a good impression north of the border and of course Major started from a higher base in Scotland than May is so had less potential gains. 18 Labour gains in England would still leave Corbyn with fewer MPs than Brown after the 2010 election, especially if the boundary changes are introduced too
Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".
Indeed, though all voted for Kerry as well as Obama so I expect Hillary to squeeze home even if Trump wins all the George W Bush 2004 states except Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia (which he may well do)
Of those, if we assume that this election is going to be most effected by the disenfranchised, PA should be The Donald's primary target. NH has been slowly drifting away from the GOP in recent elections.
On 538's current map, Trump needs Florida and one other. That is very doable, and he seems well and truly underpriced in the betting markets at the moment, unless your view is that this is peak Faintgate and that swing back to Hillary is inevitable from this point. I am unconvinced on this last.
I've quite a lot of Trumpers in my timeline and they're tails up. The half dozen Hillary poolers are doing a lot of whataboutery and Look Squirrel.
I think Trump could do this - I really do. With trust in MSM very low - the media seems to be getting desperate a la Brexit. It's the GOP whose voters have lost the most.
"A major pollster has some stark news: “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year,” writes Art Swift, an analyst for the Gallup poll, which first asked the nation to weigh in on the press in 1972.
"The sentiment has fallen slowly and steadily, and has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.
“Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14 percent from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years,” the analyst noted. Among Democrats, the number is 51 percent, among independents, it is 30 percent.
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
The only reason for saying this would for the MPs or the Lords to block triggering A50. That would be any even bigger constitutionally disturbing/inappropriate act as it would directly override the will of the people in the referendum.
Therefore, the government need to trigger A50 at a time of their choosing. Anything else is an insult to the people's decision.
52% of the people might be insulted. Don't present it as an overwhelming decision by 'the people'.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
There is no CiC effect. This is all Clinton Collapse.
Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".
Indeed, though all voted for Kerry as well as Obama so I expect Hillary to squeeze home even if Trump wins all the George W Bush 2004 states except Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia (which he may well do)
Of those, if we assume that this election is going to be most effected by the disenfranchised, PA should be The Donald's primary target. NH has been slowly drifting away from the GOP in recent elections.
On 538's current map, Trump needs Florida and one other. That is very doable, and he seems well and truly underpriced in the betting markets at the moment, unless your view is that this is peak Faintgate and that swing back to Hillary is inevitable from this point. I am unconvinced on this last.
Yes, Pennsylvania is key for both, though Trump needs a big lead in rural areas to overcome Philadelphia
A certain punter with a decent track record on these sorts of things:
"One more stumble, and she's done, if it's not already over for her..."
The deplorables speech feels like Dave's little Englander speech. A last minute gamble because privately they know they are losing.
The similarities between June and November are becoming uncannier by the day.
Quite - I wonder what Assange has lined up next - the emails are getting gradually more embarrasing, the pitting of Dems against Dems is very clear. One staffer refers to donors as *clowns*.
I can't begin to imagine how effed off some of these people are right now. It's poisonous contempt for voters, donors and colleagues.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
It feels like they know they've lost.
I actually have no idea what any of Clinton's policies are. I have a reasonable idea what Sanders was suggesting and we know all about Trump, but Clinton I have bugger all idea.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
It feels like they know they've lost.
I actually have no idea what any of Clinton's policies are. I have a reasonable idea what Sanders was suggesting and we know all about Trump, but Clinton I have bugger all idea.
So far those are the replies from ordinary people, what the hell does your candidate stand for? Negative adverts against Trump don't tell us what Clinton stands for, just that she isn't Trump. Again, the similarities between Remain and Clinton are there for anyone to see.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
It feels like they know they've lost.
I actually have no idea what any of Clinton's policies are. I have a reasonable idea what Sanders was suggesting and we know all about Trump, but Clinton I have bugger all idea.
Ditto. She likes identity politics a lot though. What she'll do in office hasn't crossed my thousands of POTUS tweets.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
It feels like they know they've lost.
I actually have no idea what any of Clinton's policies are. I have a reasonable idea what Sanders was suggesting and we know all about Trump, but Clinton I have bugger all idea.
So far those are the replies from ordinary people, what the hell does your candidate stand for? Negative adverts against Trump don't tell us what Clinton stands for, just that she isn't Trump. Again, the similarities between Remain and Clinton are there for anyone to see.
I saw an angry Dems tweet about Hillary's childcare policy last night - how she'd got there first or somesuch. Well, that's fine and dandy - but if we haven't noticed, it didn't happen.
WireSpy Exclusive: John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found - The Telegraph https://t.co/jGOr4fd7PI
So he's on the record very recently describing himself as a Marxist. He is not a Marxist-Leninist since he has never been close to the CPGB. In which case he is most definitely a Trotskyite, or trot for short. So much for the accusations of being a trot being an insult. In his case it's a statement of fact.
According to RCP Clinton is at 209-154 at the moment, a lead of 55. With no toss ups Clinton wins 293-245, a lead of only 48.
It seems to me that we are close to a tipping point where Trump is going to win more of the toss up states than Clinton. Not enough more yet but more. There are a number of toss ups that can swing in the 84 EC votes that Clinton is getting at the moment and it won't take much, probably only another 1-2% swing.
This is getting seriously close and Clinton is currently not on the trail. She really cannot afford to lose much more ground.
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.
Fair enough. And in any case, I had forgotten that the election is decided by each state delegation (i.e. all their Representatives) having one vote. That ought to make things much more secure for Trump.
Peeling off a member of the electoral college would be far more viable (for either side).
Imagine if a faithless elector decided the result. It would be outrageous but its possible.
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.
The CiC debate was not a proper one on one debate so I doubt had much impact. The first proper head to head debate is on 27th September in New York
The swing to Trump started before 11th September, but was masked as most polls seem to cover about a week. I do note that 538 is discounting the LA Times by 4, not 6.
If you look at 538s list of Pennsylvania polls then you won't see ANY that polled after September 8th, so the notional Clinton +3.3 is way out of date.
Hmm, it looks like the recriminations are starting already for the Clinton camp. A liberal forum I frequent which has a few prominent Clinton staffers as members have already started blaming Sanders for running her so hard during the primaries. They also blame him for the lack of support among young people who are now breaking for Johnson and Stein in the four way polling. Their view is that the Sanders camp filled the heads of young people with more of Obama's hopium knowing that Clinton will never be able to offer it in order to sabotage her run for the White House.
It feels like they know they've lost.
I don't think they know they've lost, they just know it isn't going to be an easy win like they were hoping and expecting.
What a difference a month makes. A Clinton landslide is still a lot more likely than a Trump landside, indeed you wonder if a Republican landslide is any longer possible, but the chances of Trump edging it are improving all the time.
There is a CBS poll out (which tends to favour Clinton) stating that the race is tied in a 4-way and Clinton +2 head to head. Poll conducted 9th to 13th - so partially before and partially after Clinton Collapse.
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.
Fair enough. And in any case, I had forgotten that the election is decided by each state delegation (i.e. all their Representatives) having one vote. That ought to make things much more secure for Trump.
Peeling off a member of the electoral college would be far more viable (for either side).
Imagine if a faithless elector decided the result. It would be outrageous but its possible.
Isn't there one member of the GOP electoral slate in Texas that has already declared he won't ever vote for Trump?
Comments
The only reason for saying this would for the MPs or the Lords to block triggering A50. That would be any even bigger constitutionally disturbing/inappropriate act as it would directly override the will of the people in the referendum.
Therefore, the government need to trigger A50 at a time of their choosing. Anything else is an insult to the people's decision.
On 538's current map, Trump needs Florida and one other. That is very doable, and he seems well and truly underpriced in the betting markets at the moment, unless your view is that this is peak Faintgate and that swing back to Hillary is inevitable from this point. I am unconvinced on this last.
Must be an outlier
"One more stumble, and she's done, if it's not already over for her..."
I think Trump could do this - I really do. With trust in MSM very low - the media seems to be getting desperate a la Brexit. It's the GOP whose voters have lost the most.
"A major pollster has some stark news: “Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media ‘to report the news fully, accurately and fairly’ has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32 percent saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year,” writes Art Swift, an analyst for the Gallup poll, which first asked the nation to weigh in on the press in 1972.
"The sentiment has fallen slowly and steadily, and has consistently been below a majority level since 2007.
“Republicans who say they have trust in the media has plummeted to 14 percent from 32% a year ago. This is easily the lowest confidence among Republicans in 20 years,” the analyst noted. Among Democrats, the number is 51 percent, among independents, it is 30 percent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/14/gallup-poll-american-trust-in-news-media-falls-to-/
The similarities between June and November are becoming uncannier by the day.
I can't begin to imagine how effed off some of these people are right now. It's poisonous contempt for voters, donors and colleagues.
It feels like they know they've lost.
On a plane?
It seems to me that we are close to a tipping point where Trump is going to win more of the toss up states than Clinton. Not enough more yet but more. There are a number of toss ups that can swing in the 84 EC votes that Clinton is getting at the moment and it won't take much, probably only another 1-2% swing.
This is getting seriously close and Clinton is currently not on the trail. She really cannot afford to lose much more ground.
titter....
Q: [To McDonnell] You said as a Marxist you welcomed the crash. Do you stand by that?
It was a joke, says McDonnell.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/15/may-approves-hinkley-point-but-with-new-safeguards-over-foreign-nuclear-investment-politics-live
13.51
If you look at 538s list of Pennsylvania polls then you won't see ANY that polled after September 8th, so the notional Clinton +3.3 is way out of date.
A terrible economic crash that affected people's homes and livelihoods, and McDonnell thinks it ok to joke about it?
new thread
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-locked-in-tight-race-nationally-cbsnyt-poll/
It was conducted to phone which may (not will) mean that there could be a shy Trumper effect.