politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With polls tightening & the betting moves to Trump tonight’s PB/Polling Matters TV Show/Podcast returns to WH2016
Joining Keiran (on the programme is the Politco polling analyst, Steven Shepard (@POLITICO_Steve) and Federica Cocco (@federicacocco) statistical journalist at the Financial Times in the UK.
FPT: It's possible to overthink these things. I voted for the UK to withdraw from the political structures of the EU as they are no longer fit for purpose.
I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.
I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.
Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...
The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.
Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.
I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.
Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...
The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.
Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
Well I defer to your better judgement Dr Fox In Ox.
The way she looks, speaks, walks briskly, etc. Looks utterly unlike anybody with pneumonia I've ever seen but you know better than me.
Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
'Most' people?
Brexit was the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. The kind of liberal free-trading outlook you support has few better allies in the world than the EU.
Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
A possible Trump win and Brexit are certainly not votes for libertarianism (indeed a libertarian candidate is even running against Trump), they are largely votes by the white working and lower middle class against immigration and free trade which they believe are now working against their own interests and in favour only of the wealthy and big corporations
Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
'Most' people?
Brexit was the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. The kind of liberal free-trading outlook you support has few better allies in the world than the EU.
What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?
Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.
Trump is 'Mr Brexit' after all even though most of the Brexiteers on here are horrified by the association...
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Seems to me Kaine could sink Clinton's campaign by landing her in it on what he knew when. Now, what could the Democrats possibly have to gain from him doing that...?
@John_M Yes. It's the " End of History " thing of saying X means the end/begining of the Age of Y/Aquarius/Robots etc. I did it myself last night comparing 2016 to 1979. Thatcher/Iran/Afghanistan.
Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.
Trump is 'Mr Brexit' after all even though most of the Brexiteers on here are horrified by the association...
I'm not horrified; it's apparent that one of the drivers of Brexit was nationalism even though that faction isn't very well represented on here. But we can have a liberal Brexit; can we have a liberal President Trump?
(FWIW, I'm sure he'd be a more responsible President than some fear. But his dishonest and demagogic campaign really shouldn't be rewarded.)
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
@AndyJS The council estates of say Doncaster didn't vote for Leave in support of " Anglosphere Libertarianism " whatever that is. They appear to have voted for a racially homogenous version of European Statism. More council housing, a better resourced NHS, more heavy industry with it's unionisation and stability. Leave seemed to have mobilised the ' Red UKIP ' vote far more effectively than UKIP themselves ever have.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
What do you mean "comes across as"...
And Trump doesn't?
It is unfair - but Clinton reminds me of Nixon at the end. Can't tell the truth without looking shifty. Trump - well, he is a blowhard. You don't expect him to channel Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr...
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?
Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
@Sean_F@WilliamGlenn Agreed. I understand why an economic liberal could want to leave the EU. How any economic liberal could vote Leave after the campaign and it became clear what sort of cultural phenomenon it was was a beyond me. I fear the Hannan wing of Brexiters will find themselves as Dr Frankenstein on this. Though I accept it's too early to tell.
What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?
Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
Or, to be charitable, it could just be a quirk of their Monte-Carlo simulation. Unusual results will happen. (There is a very large peak at Clinton wins 271/272 votes)
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
@John_M Yes. It's the " End of History " thing of saying X means the end/begining of the Age of Y/Aquarius/Robots etc. I did it myself last night comparing 2016 to 1979. Thatcher/Iran/Afghanistan.
I'm sufficiently jaded that I don't think Brexit signifies any great division or watershed.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
This lot have the arrogant disdain that rather reminds me of the Marquis de Maynes in the film Scaramouche. They enjoy their hatred and their contempt
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Nationalism has been corrupted.
It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.
If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
They did but they supported trade and prosperity first. Nationalists since the early 20th century believe in building up national industries and restricting access of foreign industries to the domestic market and in their most extreme form racial purity and military conquest too
What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?
Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
This lot have the arrogant disdain that rather reminds me of the Marquis de Maynes in the film Scaramouche. They enjoy their hatred and their contempt
Indeed, Mandelson, Juncker and Osborne all play the role well
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
Good way of putting it.
A British comparison might be Cherie Blair as Labour leader versus Nigel Farage as Tory leader.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Nationalism has been corrupted.
It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
"The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."
Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.
Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.
If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
Classical liberalism also understood the concept of progressing towards an eventual goal. Free movement of people between areas of equal economic and social development is a very different thing to importing cheap labour on a vast scale.
It often seems to me that the where the EU went mad was in 1989 - the fall of communism inspired a bunch of old politicians that they could achieve their goal of the United States of Europe in a few short years, rather than generations.
I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.
I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.
Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...
The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.
Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
And the blue lens glasses?
I suspect her eyes were a bit sore and red so she wore them as cover.
If she had photosensitive epilepsy as some are claiming then having flashguns going off in her face would set it off, and with all those photographers taking pictures it would be bleeding obvious.. Tinted glasses do not protect against it, neither do they benefit Parkinsons.
Watch her convention speech. She walks steadily with no festinent gait, she initiates movements easily, turns easily, stops easily, no tremor, no bradykinesia. Full range of facial movement etc etc.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
You don't become a great "nation state" by subcontracting your law making a la EU.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
What do you mean "comes across as"...
And Trump doesn't?
There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Nationalism has been corrupted.
It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
It came out of philology.
Etymologically nation has to do with birth, and the idea that that principally means where you are born, rather than your ethnolinguistic family background, is very new even in most of the places where it's evident - and in much of the world, it isn't even evident.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
What do you mean "comes across as"...
And Trump doesn't?
There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
"less than frank"...that is certainly one way of putting it.
Both have been caught out telling untruths on an epic scale, the problem for the American people is it is one or the other.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
RCS is right. The probability of an international trade war brought on by Trumpism and Brexitism is quite high.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
I think in America, protectionism is strong.
In the UK, I don't think that's the case, but we are pragmatic and know dud ideological dogma when we see it. Particularly when it's fashionable on the continent.
The almost theological worship of unadulterated free movement is that dogma today.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.
If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
I don't think that's true. The UK - unlike France, or Spain for example - had a genuinely open door policy for immigration in the 19th Century.
There were staggering proportions (around a third IIRC) of some countries that emigrated in the 19th Century - mostly to the US.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
What do you mean "comes across as"...
And Trump doesn't?
There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
Trump has even boasted that he could be the first presidential candidate who will make money out of running for president. It doesn't harm him. He is a master at working a crowd. Look how he does it when he gets his medical papers out on Mehmet Oz's show. His style of delivery is similar to how he presents himself in professional wrestling. This guy is a brand - a pantomime performer, and brilliant at it.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
Australia has the highest percentage of residents born overseas of all the OECD countries, and continues to have per capita immigration at twice the rate that we have had over the last two decades. By 2030 the population is projected to have doubled over 40 years as a result of migrants and their descendants.
Whatever makes Oz successful (mostly a commodity driven economy and immigration in my view) it is not the example of restricting immigration that you are looking for. Japan may be a better choice as an example of a country unsullied by immigrants.
"The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."
Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.
Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.
Mexico and Canada would also have to agree, if Trump gets in more likely NAFTA collapses
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.
If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
I don't think that's true. The UK - unlike France, or Spain for example - had a genuinely open door policy for immigration in the 19th Century.
There were staggering proportions (around a third IIRC) of some countries that emigrated in the 19th Century - mostly to the US.
Perhaps, but almost unthinkingly and de jure was different to de facto. In those days, only the very wealthy could travel regularly, and the poor that did generally only emigrated from the UK, one way, and did so permanently.
Had hundreds of thousands of poor Chinese or Indians made their way into the UK as immigrants, the rules would have been tightened, by the Whigs, very quickly.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
RCS is right. The probability of an international trade war brought on by Trumpism and Brexitism is quite high.
If Trump wins and both come to pass it is almost a certainty
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
But what if the people didn't actually want it?
As long as they are in a democracy they can make their voice heard in various ways like voting for separatists.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
I think in America, protectionism is strong.
In the UK, I don't think that's the case, but we are pragmatic and know dud ideological dogma when we see it. Particularly when it's fashionable on the continent.
The almost theological worship of unadulterated free movement is that dogma today.
Immigration is the biggest concern on both sides of the Atlantic but cheap foreign goods and offshoring of manufacturing jobs is also a concern too
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
To be clear, I voted Remain. I understand - I think - why people voted Leave even if I believe their reasons to be counter-productive.
Australia has higher immigration than the UK does in the EU. And I don't believe most people do make the distinction between "controlled" but higher immigration and "out of control" but actually lower immigration. They see the people on their streets.
And, PS, Australia also has politicians who claim Australia is being swamped by immigration. You don't need the EU as a bogeyman for that.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
85% of Australia's exports are raw materials. I'm not sure that's a model we can follow.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
Also known as the David Frum endorsement of Mitt Romeny.
Ruby Cramer Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
Shifty, very shifty.
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
It's staggering to me the level of support for Trump on this forum. Brexit i could understand- but struggling to see any redeeming features for Trump.
"The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."
Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.
Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.
NAFTA does involve some very serious diminution of sovereignty, though. (Not an EU scale, but certainly more than EFTA/EEA.) So, for example, a US ISDS tribunal (with its holding held in secret) was able to overturn a ban on GMOs by the State of Quebec.
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
To be clear, I voted Remain. I understand - I think - why people voted Leave even if I believe their reasons to be counter-productive.
Australia has higher immigration than the UK does in the EU. And I don't believe most people do make the distinction between "controlled" but higher immigration and "out of control" but actually lower immigration. They see the people on their streets.
And, PS, Australia also has politicians who claim Australia is being swamped by immigration. You don't need the EU as a bogeyman for that.
Also, of course, there is freedom of labour between Australia and New Zealand.
It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
But what if the people didn't actually want it?
As long as they are in a democracy they can make their voice heard in various ways like voting for separatists.
Problem was we were denied any vote on the EU ( and its various predecessors and treaties) for 42 years. The Blair/Brown Govts promised us a vote and then fled from the judgement of the people (do you think they thought they'd lose perchance?) on the Giscardian constitution/Lisbon treaty.
Eventually democracy has (hopefully) prevailed after a govt was coralled by a combination of accident and design into giving democracy an actual go.
When asked, the people didn't want the European project as it looked in 2016.
David Martosko ProTip: Don't run to the bathroom during a @HillaryClinton press availability. It'll be over before you flush.
Again she did a whole four questions, it's a box tick nothing more.
Given there has been no stories at all, no email leaks revelations, etc etc etc, no wonder the press pack had to resort to asking about the ending of the Good Wife...
Could you ever imagine Nick Robinson standing up during GE campaign and saying Mrs May, what do you think about Sky Sports vs R4 coverage of the Test Matches...
It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed. 2) Only countries in the EU can succeed. 3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole... 4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
85% of Australia's exports are raw materials. I'm not sure that's a model we can follow.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/brexit-liberalism-post-liberal-age?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Well I defer to your better judgement Dr Fox In Ox.
The way she looks, speaks, walks briskly, etc. Looks utterly unlike anybody with pneumonia I've ever seen but you know better than me.
Brexit was the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. The kind of liberal free-trading outlook you support has few better allies in the world than the EU.
Tonight's local by-elections include some interesting places... https://t.co/YnZdnwgWst https://t.co/6N3P499T3W
Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr
She sounds like a robot
And there was me thinking I got a good deal, laying her @ 1000
#puntersregrets
Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
(FWIW, I'm sure he'd be a more responsible President than some fear. But his dishonest and demagogic campaign really shouldn't be rewarded.)
You can get 7/4 or 15/8 on The Donald. Which can't be too bad on a 40% chance of winning
(Am I right here: You gain 2.8 and lose 2.4 or gain 6 and lose 4.8?)
Why so many others do not, baffles me.
It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.
I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
Donald Trump, 70
Hillary Clinton, 68
Bernie Sanders, 75
Tim Kaine, 58
Are they trying to tell us something?
It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
A British comparison might be Cherie Blair as Labour leader versus Nigel Farage as Tory leader.
Worth a read, IMHO...
"The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."
Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.
Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.
It often seems to me that the where the EU went mad was in 1989 - the fall of communism inspired a bunch of old politicians that they could achieve their goal of the United States of Europe in a few short years, rather than generations.
Etymologically nation has to do with birth, and the idea that that principally means where you are born, rather than your ethnolinguistic family background, is very new even in most of the places where it's evident - and in much of the world, it isn't even evident.
Both have been caught out telling untruths on an epic scale, the problem for the American people is it is one or the other.
1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...
Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
In the UK, I don't think that's the case, but we are pragmatic and know dud ideological dogma when we see it. Particularly when it's fashionable on the continent.
The almost theological worship of unadulterated free movement is that dogma today.
There were staggering proportions (around a third IIRC) of some countries that emigrated in the 19th Century - mostly to the US.
TV Commercial for the Sony Betamax VCR #2 - 1977. https://t.co/tPZSDtlMVP
Whatever makes Oz successful (mostly a commodity driven economy and immigration in my view) it is not the example of restricting immigration that you are looking for. Japan may be a better choice as an example of a country unsullied by immigrants.
Had hundreds of thousands of poor Chinese or Indians made their way into the UK as immigrants, the rules would have been tightened, by the Whigs, very quickly.
Australia has higher immigration than the UK does in the EU. And I don't believe most people do make the distinction between "controlled" but higher immigration and "out of control" but actually lower immigration. They see the people on their streets.
And, PS, Australia also has politicians who claim Australia is being swamped by immigration. You don't need the EU as a bogeyman for that.
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/aus/all/show/2012/
Brexit i could understand- but struggling to see any redeeming features for Trump.
ProTip: Don't run to the bathroom during a @HillaryClinton press availability. It'll be over before you flush.
Again she did a whole four questions, it's a box tick nothing more.
The UK has a complex economy, far higher population density and will require an appropriately complex system.
Eventually democracy has (hopefully) prevailed after a govt was coralled by a combination of accident and design into giving democracy an actual go.
When asked, the people didn't want the European project as it looked in 2016.
Could you ever imagine Nick Robinson standing up during GE campaign and saying Mrs May, what do you think about Sky Sports vs R4 coverage of the Test Matches...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960