Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump: grinding his way to victory?

SystemSystem Posts: 11,712
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump: grinding his way to victory?

The Terminator had nothing on Donald Trump. Relentless, seemingly unstoppable, impervious, unflappable, possessed of a few choice popular catch-phrases, assimilated but still not of this (political) world: the public’s watched in horrified awe as he swept all opposition so far aside.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,196
    edited September 2016
    Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
  • Options
    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2016
    "Tony Blair refused to expel rebel heir Jeremy Corbyn
    Former leader thought serial rebel was a nuisance not a threat, says party figure"


    https://www.ft.com/content/2178afb2-7b64-11e6-ae24-f193b105145e
  • Options
    It almost certainly wouldn’t matter. Were she to withdraw then with Trump polling as competitively as he is at the moment, it’s hard to believe that he wouldn’t prevail comfortably given the chaos that there’d be in the Democrats in that scenario.
    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.
  • Options

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    Remind me, this POTUS campaign thingy is a comedy show right?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited September 2016
    Skype is a disaster. Microsoft has ruined a good product and now is being overtaken by better alternatives. If they aren't careful it will be up there with their Nokia deal.
  • Options
    Seems like they're generally running down Skype anyhow.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited September 2016

    Seems like they're generally running down Skype anyhow.
    I believe they have already killed Skype for Linux and as a tv app. Aren't they also driving it towards some cloud based service rather than P2P?
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited September 2016
    Joe Biden should be at very, very long odds.

    Someone not often mentioned in this connection is Henry Paulson: not so many years ago, US Secretary of the Treasury. Paulson is an intelligent man, educated at the top US universities, albeit whose time in office was controversial. Paulson has written forcefully and organised conferences about many of the defining topics of our age (US-China relations, global warming and conservation, restructuring the financial system). Out of office, he still intervenes in political life.

    At this late stage of his vice-presidency, the most realistic route to top executive office requires that Joe Biden must obtain a hair-trigger piston and blast Henry Paulson in the chest, shooting to kill. It would be wise to shoot Paulson only after claiming outrage at his latest public pronouncements, and arranging an illegal duel with him to settle the score - preferably in a state like New Jersey where enforcement of anti-dueling laws is likely to be lax, particularly against a high-profile and powerful politician.

    Once the threat of prosecution has receded, probably after his term as VP has come to an end, Biden should seek to exploit the deep civil unrest that has spread across the USA (particularly in the South) or alternatively the heightened tensions along the US-Mexican border. Biden must seek out the British ambassador, or perhaps the Russians or Chinese given the current global balance of power, and request funds and support for a military insurrection in Louisiana, or possible cross-border raiding party to carve out a fresh narco-state in Mexico. Either way, founding a statelet under his armed control gives Biden a sure-fire route to the presidency - albeit not of the US itself.

    The main flaw is that, should Biden's plans be intercepted before he is able to execute them, he may be put on trial for treason against the US, or at least the high misdemeanor of planning an attack on a friendly country. However, he'll surely be found not-guilty. It would be difficult to prove that any irregular forces were intended to be directed against a foreign state and cross the border rather than, say, protect property on the U.S. frontier, so the high misdemeanor won't stick. His lawyers can argue that discussing splitting the USA or engaging in conspiracy to do so is insufficient to constitute "treason" unless Biden has undertaken an "overt act" of war - if stopped in his tracks so early, this won't be the case.

    Biden must recruit key figures like the Governor of Louisiana prior to the uprising, which increases the risk of being betrayed in the venture. Yet such co-conspirators will clearly be prone to falsify their evidence to play down their own roles and shift blame to Biden - as such, their evidence will laughed out of court as deeply unreliable.

    Worst case, should Joe fail to become President of Bideniana, he can quietly return to practising the Law in his home state under a false name.
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited September 2016
    Actually ignore my last post. It's complete balderdash and piffle. Something like that could clearly never, ever happen. Like, ever.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2016
    Deleted: quotes screwed.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2016


    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.

    Another problem is there is no reason to believe that Hillary's late withdrawal would win a single extra vote for the Democrats, and would probably lose a few women who'd see it as yet another victory for the patriarchy. Biden is gaffe-prone and even older than Hillary; Kaine a charisma-free son of the Establishment.

    Note: internal quote deleted because formatting was broken.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    That's really rather funny. Take the insult and make it your rallying cry. It's Little Englander with a huge dollop of humour.

    Almost every Trumper in my timeline has changed their user name to a variation of it.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,018

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    embrace it!
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,157
    edited September 2016


    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.

    Another problem is there is no reason to believe that Hillary's late withdrawal would win a single extra vote for the Democrats, and would probably lose a few women who'd see it as yet another victory for the patriarchy. Biden is gaffe-prone and even older than Hillary; Kaine a charisma-free son of the Establishment.

    Note: internal quote deleted because formatting was broken.
    I know you can't quite take these numbers at face value but look at their favourability ratings. Biden is double-digit positive, Kaine is neutral, Hillary is double-digit negative. It's rare for a presidential candidate to be this disliked: The only reason Hillary is in contention is because Trump is even more exceptionally unpopular.

    I take the point about women voters potentially thinking they woz robbed, but Biden would be having a far easier time in this race. He gaffes from time to time, but they're not devastating ones, and he would be an excellent candidate to put up against Trump.

    But like I say this only happens over Hillary Clinton's dead body.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,018
    PlatoSaid said:

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    That's really rather funny. Take the insult and make it your rallying cry. It's Little Englander with a huge dollop of humour.

    Almost every Trumper in my timeline has changed their user name to a variation of it.
    Reminds you of 'tory scum'? :D
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    That's really rather funny. Take the insult and make it your rallying cry. It's Little Englander with a huge dollop of humour.

    Almost every Trumper in my timeline has changed their user name to a variation of it.
    Something odd about that, and I don't know if it is commonplace, but as Trump reaches the lectern he takes his speech from his pocket, yet clearly autocue is set up.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,018

    PlatoSaid said:

    Trump welcomes the deplorables to his rally.

    htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEiTKloMgBg

    That's really rather funny. Take the insult and make it your rallying cry. It's Little Englander with a huge dollop of humour.

    Almost every Trumper in my timeline has changed their user name to a variation of it.
    Something odd about that, and I don't know if it is commonplace, but as Trump reaches the lectern he takes his speech from his pocket, yet clearly autocue is set up.
    Autocue could always break.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited September 2016
    I enjoyed this piece - especially re David Duke - it reminds me of Rod Liddle

    "Whenever the left talks about "racism," it has nothing to do with what's good or bad for black people. It's just another event in the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips... I beat you in blacks yesterday; I'm going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people...

    For decades now, the most important job of anyone covering a presidential election is to unceasingly demand that the Republican candidate disavow David Duke. This laughably irrelevant man must be trotted out as a bogeyman to frighten NPR listeners. Instead of reporting news, journalists have become Official David Duke Disavowal Demanders.

    The only way we find out that Duke is still alive is that Republicans are asked to denounce him every four years. For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double...

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264189/could-hillary-tell-us-what-percentage-muslims-are-ann-coulter
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Deplorable Elizabeth
    While Hillary prattles about racism, Trump opens up a rally with "Do You Hear The People Sing."

    We are the people. https://t.co/hkKM1Blqbb

    Complete with the banner and lyrics! The more I think about it, the funnier it gets - a hit show about revolution.
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    I enjoyed this piece - especially re David Duke - it reminds me of Rod Liddle

    "Whenever the left talks about "racism," it has nothing to do with what's good or bad for black people. It's just another event in the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips... I beat you in blacks yesterday; I'm going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people...

    For decades now, the most important job of anyone covering a presidential election is to unceasingly demand that the Republican candidate disavow David Duke. This laughably irrelevant man must be trotted out as a bogeyman to frighten NPR listeners. Instead of reporting news, journalists have become Official David Duke Disavowal Demanders.

    The only way we find out that Duke is still alive is that Republicans are asked to denounce him every four years. For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double...

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264189/could-hillary-tell-us-what-percentage-muslims-are-ann-coulter

    If Duke had died 20 years ago, VP-nominee Pence would not have noticeably declined to denounce him after Duke endorsed Trump.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    PlatoSaid said:

    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com

    To win, he needs the hard core conservatives and the social conservatives, in addition to his disaffected, to show up in large numbers at the polls. So yes, this matters.
  • Options
    vikvik Posts: 157
    edited September 2016
    HYUFD said:

    Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.

    Looking at recent polls in Colorado:
    - Emerson has Trump +4
    - Ipsos has Trump +3
    - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll
    - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.

    So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/colorado/
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com

    Trump's advisers clearly think so. Presumably if Trump himself thought so, he'd have "clarified" his thoughts earlier (and as the article notes, this has not previously been Trump's position). The danger for Trump is that it might matter both ways and in attracting one group of voters, he repels another.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,013
    The only thing Trump needs to win is a bit of differential turnout

    When the queues are "normal to quiet" in DC and New York City polling stations, and they're reporting record turnout at rural stations.......
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Guccifer is at it again - ground game data

    https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/dems-internal-workings/
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Another view

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/upshot/why-the-whole-trump-clinton-election-could-probably-just-be-held-in-pennsylvania.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=

    With her polling lead slipping, Hillary Clinton still has Pennsylvania as a firewall — for now.

    David Rothschild, an economist at Microsoft Research who runs PredictWise, an online forecasting model that relies on betting markets, explained the primacy of Pennsylvania for Mrs. Clinton’s election chances during an interview this week.

    He also discussed the potential importance of the ground game, the perceived failure of betting markets in predicting “Brexit” and the ethics of live forecasting on Election Day, among other topics. Here’s the lightly edited text of our email exchange.
  • Options
    David Herdson's OP says, the value lies with Trump and, I’d suggest, makes the 6/4 widely available on him quite attractive.

    For me, it is hard to see that Trump has more than a 40 per cent chance of winning, so the price does not seem generous.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,532
    It was received wisdom after Obama/Romney, certainly after the result and to some extent before, that the Reps couldn't win with such bad demographics amongst black and Latino voters, particularly given the way the US population is trending. Yet here we are after four years of further demographic change and with a candidate with worse scores on these demographics than Romney and suddenly people think he might win? Is this analysis? Or a projection of post-Brexit sentiment (which is mainly a WWC feature anyway when WWC votes alone were supposed to be insufficient to win) onto the US?
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    IanB2 said:

    It was received wisdom after Obama/Romney, certainly after the result and to some extent before, that the Reps couldn't win with such bad demographics amongst black and Latino voters, particularly given the way the US population is trending. Yet here we are after four years of further demographic change and with a candidate with worse scores on these demographics than Romney and suddenly people think he might win? Is this analysis? Or a projection of post-Brexit sentiment (which is mainly a WWC feature anyway when WWC votes alone were supposed to be insufficient to win) onto the US?

    Honestly I think when there's two horses in the race then people get bored of saying only one will win.

    US presidential elections always seem closer compared to UK ones. Clinton has more of a lead at this point than Obama did in either of his election runs, (and Obama beat Romney by 2.9% and was relatively comfortable).
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    edited September 2016
    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:

    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com

    Trump's advisers clearly think so. Presumably if Trump himself thought so, he'd have "clarified" his thoughts earlier (and as the article notes, this has not previously been Trump's position). The danger for Trump is that it might matter both ways and in attracting one group of voters, he repels another.
    True, although voters who will be repelled by this probably aren't voting for him anyway.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    PlatoSaid said:
    Isn't he in prison?
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:

    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com

    Trump's advisers clearly think so. Presumably if Trump himself thought so, he'd have "clarified" his thoughts earlier (and as the article notes, this has not previously been Trump's position). The danger for Trump is that it might matter both ways and in attracting one group of voters, he repels another.
    True, although voters who will be repelled by this probably aren't voting for him anyway.
    You (and the political consultants) may be wrong there. To the extent Trump is attracting NOTA and former-DNVs, there is probably ample scope to repel these voters in chasing a bloc who vote Republican anyway.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Campaigning by walking about? If Clinton's poll dip was caused by last weekend's health scare, then just staying alive might be enough.
  • Options
    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    edited September 2016

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
  • Options


    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.

    Another problem is there is no reason to believe that Hillary's late withdrawal would win a single extra vote for the Democrats, and would probably lose a few women who'd see it as yet another victory for the patriarchy. Biden is gaffe-prone and even older than Hillary; Kaine a charisma-free son of the Establishment.

    Note: internal quote deleted because formatting was broken.
    I know you can't quite take these numbers at face value but look at their favourability ratings. Biden is double-digit positive, Kaine is neutral, Hillary is double-digit negative. It's rare for a presidential candidate to be this disliked: The only reason Hillary is in contention is because Trump is even more exceptionally unpopular.

    I take the point about women voters potentially thinking they woz robbed, but Biden would be having a far easier time in this race. He gaffes from time to time, but they're not devastating ones, and he would be an excellent candidate to put up against Trump.

    But like I say this only happens over Hillary Clinton's dead body.
    Trump isnt unpopular - he's marmite
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913


    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.

    Another problem is there is no reason to believe that Hillary's late withdrawal would win a single extra vote for the Democrats, and would probably lose a few women who'd see it as yet another victory for the patriarchy. Biden is gaffe-prone and even older than Hillary; Kaine a charisma-free son of the Establishment.

    Note: internal quote deleted because formatting was broken.
    I know you can't quite take these numbers at face value but look at their favourability ratings. Biden is double-digit positive, Kaine is neutral, Hillary is double-digit negative. It's rare for a presidential candidate to be this disliked: The only reason Hillary is in contention is because Trump is even more exceptionally unpopular.

    I take the point about women voters potentially thinking they woz robbed, but Biden would be having a far easier time in this race. He gaffes from time to time, but they're not devastating ones, and he would be an excellent candidate to put up against Trump.

    But like I say this only happens over Hillary Clinton's dead body.
    Trump isnt unpopular - he's marmite
    Not Marmite, more like Crystal Meth..
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    I enjoyed this piece - especially re David Duke - it reminds me of Rod Liddle

    "Whenever the left talks about "racism," it has nothing to do with what's good or bad for black people. It's just another event in the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips... I beat you in blacks yesterday; I'm going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people...

    For decades now, the most important job of anyone covering a presidential election is to unceasingly demand that the Republican candidate disavow David Duke. This laughably irrelevant man must be trotted out as a bogeyman to frighten NPR listeners. Instead of reporting news, journalists have become Official David Duke Disavowal Demanders.

    The only way we find out that Duke is still alive is that Republicans are asked to denounce him every four years. For all we know, Duke died 20 years ago and the media are using a body double...

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264189/could-hillary-tell-us-what-percentage-muslims-are-ann-coulter

    I prefer Daisy Duke
  • Options

    Joe Biden should be at very, very long odds.

    Someone not often mentioned in this connection is Henry Paulson: not so many years ago, US Secretary of the Treasury. Paulson is an intelligent man, educated at the top US universities, albeit whose time in office was controversial. Paulson has written forcefully and organised conferences about many of the defining topics of our age (US-China relations, global warming and conservation, restructuring the financial system). Out of office, he still intervenes in political life.

    At this late stage of his vice-presidency, the most realistic route to top executive office requires that Joe Biden must obtain a hair-trigger piston and blast Henry Paulson in the chest, shooting to kill. It would be wise to shoot Paulson only after claiming outrage at his latest public pronouncements, and arranging an illegal duel with him to settle the score - preferably in a state like New Jersey where enforcement of anti-dueling laws is likely to be lax.

    Once the threat of prosecution has receded, probably after his term as VP has come to an end, Biden should seek to exploit the deep civil unrest that has spread across the USA (particularly in the South) or alternatively the heightened tensions along the US-Mexican border. Biden must seek out the British ambassador, or perhaps the Russians or Chinese given the current global balance of power, and request funds and support for a military insurrection in Louisiana, or possible raiding party to carve out a fresh narco-state in Mexico. Either way, founding a statelet under his control gives Biden a sure-fire route to the presidency - albeit not of the US itself.

    The main flaw is that, should Biden's plans be intercepted before he is able to execute them, he may be put on trial for treason, or at least the high misdemeanor of planning an attack on a friendly country. However, he'll surely be found not-guilty. It would be difficult to prove that any irregular forces were intended to be directed against a foreign state and cross the border rather than, say, protect property on the U.S. frontier, so the high misdemeanor won't stick. His lawyers can argue that discussing splitting the USA or engaging in conspiracy to do so is insufficient to constitute "treason" unless Biden has undertaken an "overt act" of war - if stopped in his tracks so early, this won't be the case.

    Biden must recruit key figures like the Governor of Louisiana prior to the uprising, which increases the risk of being betrayed in the venture. Yet such co-conspirators will clearly be prone to falsify their evidence to play down their own roles and shift blame to Biden - as such, their evidence will laughed out of court as deeply unreliable.

    Worst case, should Joe fail to become President of Bideniana, he can quietly return to practising the Law in his home state under a false name.

    Lol. Only on PB. Thank you Mr Burr.
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    Does this make much difference either way?

    "Donald Trump announced today that he is launching a Pro-Life Coalition "to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand."

    There has been skepticism about Trump's candidacy among the pro-life community, with many leader signing a letter during primary season urging for voters to pick anyone but Trump.

    In a letter announcing the coalition, Trump pledges to defund Planned Parenthood, despite identifying them previously and doing good work. He also pledges to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and the make the Hyde Amendment permanent.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/elections-2016-live-blog#lf-content=172072172:lb-post-df32f8bb3aa575894b656132d98660c6@livefyre.com

    Yes, that is big. It puts a metaphoric stake into Clintons heart.

    I'm quite surprised he has done it as he didnt seem to be that right wing socially, but I guess he needs to secure the votes of the religious right.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Fox News Poll out has Trump +1, field work done from 11th to 14th.

    With the LA Times tracker seemingly levelling off if that is as bad as it gets for Hilary then my "It's over, this is Trump's to lose" statement may have been overblown.
  • Options
    Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    edited September 2016
    In other news, Jill Stein and the Greens keep trundling along at 2-4% nationally.

    I've known some Green Party activists and for starry-eyed environmentalists, they can be quite cold and shrewd in their assessment of the realpolitik. They know exactly where they stand in the political eco-system. But I always have a vision of the volunteers in some small campaign office somewhere who take the most the positive view on your typical 3.5% MOE. Another Reuters poll will come out and there'll be high-fives and cheers all around. "Hey, we're on 6%!"
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
  • Options
    corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    edited September 2016

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
  • Options
    Oborne is putting the boot into Gideon bigtime.

    http://dailym.ai/2cQiimX
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: note qualifying (and practice) are an hour later than usual. Qualifying starts at 2pm.

    On Farage/Trump: I did say if Trump won then Farage would be the most influential politician of the year. Not even in Parliament, but affecting, significantly, the fates of both the UK and US is very unusual.
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
  • Options

    David Herdson's OP says, the value lies with Trump and, I’d suggest, makes the 6/4 widely available on him quite attractive.

    For me, it is hard to see that Trump has more than a 40 per cent chance of winning, so the price does not seem generous.

    What do you see Trump's true chances at? I'd put it in the 45-50% band at the moment, hence my comment.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
    The thing is that Clinton = more of the same just as Remain did
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    Alistair said:

    Fox News Poll out has Trump +1, field work done from 11th to 14th.

    With the LA Times tracker seemingly levelling off if that is as bad as it gets for Hilary then my "It's over, this is Trump's to lose" statement may have been overblown.

    It will come down to the debates. Trump goes into them in a stronger position than Romney did vs Obama and Clinton is not close to even the same league as Obama. She got soundly beaten by an old socialist in the primary debates.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Not if Trump takes Colorado and Nevada.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    GB Paralympics team have now won a total of 126 medals and remain second in the table behind China

    58 Gold 33 silver and 35 bronze

    Epic by any standards from our paraolympians
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,013
    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Well Florida and Ohio are looking good for Trump...
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    .
    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    Fox News Poll out has Trump +1, field work done from 11th to 14th.

    With the LA Times tracker seemingly levelling off if that is as bad as it gets for Hilary then my "It's over, this is Trump's to lose" statement may have been overblown.

    It will come down to the debates. Trump goes into them in a stronger position than Romney did vs Obama and Clinton is not close to even the same league as Obama. She got soundly beaten by an old socialist in the primary debates.
    She was defending her left flank there where she is weak. In the Presidential debate she seeks to stake the centre ground - something that Trump shows an instinctive aversion to.

    I agree with you that it is all about the debates. A bad bout of coughing would be disastrous for Clinton. However, unlike Obama in '08 I think Clinton will actually prepare for the first debate.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
    The thing is that Clinton = more of the same just as Remain did
    Except she doesn't. Obama's favourability rating is +9; Hillary's is -14. If the true 'more of the same' candidate were running, he'd be very well set to win. What she represents is 'the same, but worse'.
  • Options


    I don't think there would be chaos. The DNC would have a meeting and nominate Tim Kaine or possibly Joe Biden, Hillary would announce her support for that person and request that where she was on the ballot all her electors vote for them, and that person would be strongly favoured to win. This race is only competitive because both the candidates are deeply horrible, albeit talented in different ways.

    The problem with this scenario isn't what would happen if Hillary withdrew, it's that Hillary would only withdraw if she was dead, and maybe not even then.

    Another problem is there is no reason to believe that Hillary's late withdrawal would win a single extra vote for the Democrats, and would probably lose a few women who'd see it as yet another victory for the patriarchy. Biden is gaffe-prone and even older than Hillary; Kaine a charisma-free son of the Establishment.

    Note: internal quote deleted because formatting was broken.
    I know you can't quite take these numbers at face value but look at their favourability ratings. Biden is double-digit positive, Kaine is neutral, Hillary is double-digit negative. It's rare for a presidential candidate to be this disliked: The only reason Hillary is in contention is because Trump is even more exceptionally unpopular.

    I take the point about women voters potentially thinking they woz robbed, but Biden would be having a far easier time in this race. He gaffes from time to time, but they're not devastating ones, and he would be an excellent candidate to put up against Trump.

    But like I say this only happens over Hillary Clinton's dead body.
    Trump isnt unpopular - he's marmite
    39% dislike marmite. 58% dislike Trump. He's unpopular.
  • Options
    EXCLUSIVE - The trump, clinton debates are not live, they have been recorded already and here is a leak of the first one:

    http://youtu.be/FEUB8NVPX6I
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    corporeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    It was received wisdom after Obama/Romney, certainly after the result and to some extent before, that the Reps couldn't win with such bad demographics amongst black and Latino voters, particularly given the way the US population is trending. Yet here we are after four years of further demographic change and with a candidate with worse scores on these demographics than Romney and suddenly people think he might win? Is this analysis? Or a projection of post-Brexit sentiment (which is mainly a WWC feature anyway when WWC votes alone were supposed to be insufficient to win) onto the US?

    If it was received wisdom then it wasn't wise. Obama had several major positives as a candidate but won no landslide. While improving their ratings with blacks and latinos is certainly one route to the White House for the Republicans, it's far from the only one when up against a poor Democrat candidate.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    Alistair said:

    .

    MaxPB said:

    Alistair said:

    Fox News Poll out has Trump +1, field work done from 11th to 14th.

    With the LA Times tracker seemingly levelling off if that is as bad as it gets for Hilary then my "It's over, this is Trump's to lose" statement may have been overblown.

    It will come down to the debates. Trump goes into them in a stronger position than Romney did vs Obama and Clinton is not close to even the same league as Obama. She got soundly beaten by an old socialist in the primary debates.
    She was defending her left flank there where she is weak. In the Presidential debate she seeks to stake the centre ground - something that Trump shows an instinctive aversion to.

    I agree with you that it is all about the debates. A bad bout of coughing would be disastrous for Clinton. However, unlike Obama in '08 I think Clinton will actually prepare for the first debate.
    She'll be defending it anyway, Trump is economically to the left on trade where she is weakest.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MaxPB said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Not if Trump takes Colorado and Nevada.
    Colorado - Follow the money, candidate visits. Little from Trump. Also the ratings and demographic internal of the polls. Most polls have under sampled hispanics and few conducted in Spanish. Local GOP have effectively written off Trump's chances and are putting all efforts into state-wide races.

    Nevada I gave to Trump in the 270 map.


  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    An alternative approach to guessing who will win the White House.

    Lichtman and Russian scientist Volodia Keilis-Borok came up with the keys — a series of true/false statements — in the early 1980s. The idea is that if more than half of the keys are true, the incumbent party will stay in power, and if more than half are false, the challenging party will win the White House.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Well Florida and Ohio are looking good for Trump...
    Certainly better but it's all of FOP or bust for Trump.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,434
    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Good to hear from you, I was wondering if Mrs JackW had you off searching for $5000 shoes...
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Not if Trump takes Colorado and Nevada.
    Colorado - Follow the money, candidate visits. Little from Trump. Also the ratings and demographic internal of the polls. Most polls have under sampled hispanics and few conducted in Spanish. Local GOP have effectively written off Trump's chances and are putting all efforts into state-wide races.

    Nevada I gave to Trump in the 270 map.


    Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    Some psychologist somewhere has a fun job of diagnosing Trump from video clips and working out what will set him off.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    I am presuming Hilary is going to call him a millionaire.
  • Options

    corporeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
    That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.

    Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:

    Jean Monnet
    Michael Gorbachev
    Helmut Kohl
    Charles de Gaulle
    Jacques Delors
    Konrad Adenauer
    Margaret Thatcher
    Lech Walensa
    Joseph Stalin
    Angela Merkel
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @DavidL - See my 8:32 comment.

    @foxinsoxuk. - Thanks. Been a little off colour recently.

    Sadly there will be no ARSE4US. Have a few "procedures" coming up and R&R after. So lurking more and commenting much less if at all in the coming months.

    On POTUS follow :

    1. FOP
    2. Reliable state polls with correct demographics.
    3. Follow the money, visits and 538.

    That's the winning formula .. :smiley:

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,434

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything? Trump also got a lot more practice at debating in the GOP race than she did.

    I agree that it is possible Trump will go too far and self destruct. So he could lose. I just don't see how Hillary wins by herself.

    One other State that is interesting is North Carolina. At the moment the default assumption is that Trump wins that as Republicans usually do but it seems extremely close and he cannot win without it.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?
    'Basket of deplorables'?
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    I am presuming Hilary is going to call him a millionaire.
    To which the response is to turn to the camera and say "I made my money from business; she and her husband made theirs from contacts - which do you think should be the American way?"
  • Options

    corporeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
    That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.

    Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:

    Jean Monnet
    Michael Gorbachev
    Helmut Kohl
    Charles de Gaulle
    Jacques Delors
    Konrad Adenauer
    Margaret Thatcher
    Lech Walensa
    Joseph Stalin
    Angela Merkel
    Margaret Thatcher? Surely Edward Heath.
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
    Examples?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,480

    corporeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
    That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.

    Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:

    Jean Monnet
    Michael Gorbachev
    Helmut Kohl
    Charles de Gaulle
    Jacques Delors
    Konrad Adenauer
    Margaret Thatcher
    Lech Walensa
    Joseph Stalin
    Angela Merkel
    Karl Wojtyla and Angelo Roncalli as well (for a given value of 'politician').

    Heck, even Edith Chretien or however you spell it should surely rank ahead of Farage. He talked about the issues in Europe, she helped create them.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
    I've watched a great deal more HRC than I'd ever wish to so far in this campaign - and am still unable to think of a policy. I've heard a great deal of posturing on identity politics and name calling.

    I still can't get over her parading illegal immigrants on stage at her convention. Imagine if Labour did that here?!
  • Options

    corporeal said:

    Jonathan said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    2016 annus horribillis clusterfuckus
    Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.

    Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
    That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.

    Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:

    Jean Monnet
    Michael Gorbachev
    Helmut Kohl
    Charles de Gaulle
    Jacques Delors
    Konrad Adenauer
    Margaret Thatcher
    Lech Walensa
    Joseph Stalin
    Angela Merkel
    Margaret Thatcher? Surely Edward Heath.
    You jest, I assume?
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
    If you look at the dates that Farage speech was the turning point. Now while correlation is not causation, the message was very morale boosting. Ignore the experts, you can win despite having the whole establishment against you, we proved that.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,480
    PlatoSaid said:

    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
    I've watched a great deal more HRC than I'd ever wish to so far in this campaign - and am still unable to think of a policy. I've heard a great deal of posturing on identity politics and name calling.

    I still can't get over her parading illegal immigrants on stage at her convention. Imagine if Labour did that here?!
    This could be considered a contest between two total muppets.

    Unfortunately neither candidate possesses the charm, wit, sophistication or independence of the real Muppets.
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
    If you look at the dates that Farage speech was the turning point. Now while correlation is not causation, the message was very morale boosting. Ignore the experts, you can win despite having the whole establishment against you, we proved that.
    He changed his team at the same time or slightly before, got the Breitbart guys in
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited September 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
    Don't care who wins as one is as bad as the other.

    I have noticed though the rhetoric that was commonly written on this site by Remainers in the run up to the referendum is now being repeated in regard to Trump. Essentially use the racist deplorables label when all other attack lines seem to have failed.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.

    Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,

    Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?
    The thing is that Clinton = more of the same just as Remain did
    Except she doesn't. Obama's favourability rating is +9; Hillary's is -14. If the true 'more of the same' candidate were running, he'd be very well set to win. What she represents is 'the same, but worse'.
    One of Clinton's problems is that she has a history, and has made no attempts to hide the fact that she wants the top job. It's given her opponents every opportunity to attack her before she had even thrown her hat into the ring. It's much better to be a 'fresh' candidate.

    If she loses, I'd put it down to her time as SoS. She was too visible. I wonder if she regrets having done that role, which is much worse than being a VP as you actually have to make decisions.

    (I know Trump isn't fresh either, but his is a very different type of candidature).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,434

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?
    'Basket of deplorables'?
    Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:

    I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:

    ttps://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgY

    That Farage performance really is excellent - fluent, passionate and simple messages. It may be entirely my imagination, but some of the Brexit style tone seems to have bled into the Trump campaign too.
    If you look at the dates that Farage speech was the turning point. Now while correlation is not causation, the message was very morale boosting. Ignore the experts, you can win despite having the whole establishment against you, we proved that.
    He changed his team at the same time or slightly before, got the Breitbart guys in
    And Farage lol
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    'Basket of deplorables'?

    Shouldn't that have been "Binders and binders full of deplorables" ?
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    corporeal said:



    Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?

    Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.

    The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
    That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.

    Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:

    Jean Monnet
    Michael Gorbachev
    Helmut Kohl
    Charles de Gaulle
    Jacques Delors
    Konrad Adenauer
    Margaret Thatcher
    Lech Walensa
    Joseph Stalin
    Angela Merkel
    Karl Wojtyla and Angelo Roncalli as well (for a given value of 'politician').

    Heck, even Edith Chretien or however you spell it should surely rank ahead of Farage. He talked about the issues in Europe, she helped create them.
    Yes, that was why I phrased it as 'ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage', rather than the top 10.

    But the point you make is right: all those listed changed Europe in major ways through their decisions, and were absolutely instrumental in affecting that direction change. While I wouldn't underplay Farage's significance - he's one of the more important British 21st century politicians - he was already swimming with the tide. Those listed had such gravity that changed the tides.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP

    FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA

    RINSE AND REPEAT

    ........................................................................

    The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG

    Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.

    Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
    In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
    But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?
    'Basket of deplorables'?
    Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.
    There's been very little rubbing of any kind between those two for a while.
This discussion has been closed.