BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
If he is specific about the tax increases then that's fair enough. The LDs did run for a whole Parliament with a policy of a penny on income tax to fund education, did they not?
If he's not specific though, then his policy is no better than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls' magic money tree, and we say how that went down a year ago.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
Well, we will see if the Lib Dems start talking about a bonus tax and spend it 6-8 times over. Only then will they be ready to take over Labour's centre left position.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
To be honest i'm not sure they have another option. Pitching for the orange book/osbornite ecodry/soclib types is the other option, but Farron is the wrong leader for that anyway. Also not sure there's enough of those votes available yet - May will be careful to not veer too hard to the right and risk losing those votes.
The Lib Dem position on Referendum 2: Refer Harder is a mountain of stupidity.
For us to have a firm deal that can be voted upon, we need to have invoked Article 50 and for a deal to be hammered out.
At that stage, if we decline the deal, we leave on WTO terms. From a Lib Dem perspective, that's undoubtedly a bad thing (because the yellows are committing themselves to loving the EU).
So, what's the point? The choices will only be to leave on fully-detached or slightly less-detached terms.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
Clinton presently leads by only 3.7% with RCP in Colorado though and with Trump ahead in Florida, Ohio and lowa and less than 1% behind in Nevada and North Carolina if he wins Colorado too he would win the presidency even without Pennsylvania. However with Hillary's national RCP lead at just 0.9% Trump could well win the popular vote but lose the electoral college by a very narrow margin because Hillary holds Colorado and Pennsylvania
Nate Silver recently had a post coming to the opposite conclusion. The problem with the RCP averages is that there are less state polls so these averages lag the national picture.
For example, in Wisconsin, the RCP average has Clinton +5.3 but this is based on 2 polls in August and 1 in June. If there had been more recently polling, we would have expected this state to tighten as well. Nate Silver adjusts all the swing states in line with the national polls so he has Clinton +3.8 in Wisconsin on his polls only forecast.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
To be honest i'm not sure they have another option. Pitching for the orange book/osbornite ecodry/soclib types is the other option, but Farron is the wrong leader for that anyway. Also not sure there's enough of those votes available yet - May will be careful to not veer too hard to the right and risk losing those votes.
And, many many years ago, the 'extra penny for education' was not only one of the party's most popular policies, but often the only one people could remember and identify with the LibDems. The LibDems are still at first base as far as national recovery is concerned, and their first challenge is getting noticed amongst all the noise coming from a barely united government, Labour's never-ending-shambles and more competitors for third party than ever before.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
From today, Twitter is cutting back on what types of content will use up its 140-character limit.
Now, @names in replies, media attachments (like photos, GIFs, videos, and polls) and quoted Tweets will no longer be counted against the valuable 140 characters that make up a tweet. This allows for richer public conversations that are easier to follow on Twitter and ensures people can attach media to tweets without sacrificing the characters they have to express themselves.
Nate Silver has previously commented on how Trump does better in Internet polls vs telephone polls.
We saw the same pattern in the Brexit polling, where Telephone polling favoured Remain & was less accurate than Internet polling. The reasons are the same: Leave supporters and Trump supporters are called racists by the Mass Media, so the supporters are only willing to express their true feelings in an online survey.
I'm expecting the Internet polls to be more accurate in the US presidential election.
Perhaps, though it is also true that internet polls have tended to favour anti-establishment candidates. Is Trump the American Brexit or this year's Ron Paul?
I'd say the American Brexit. So far the campaigns are following the eUref pattern pretty closely. For me, the key differences between Trump & Brexit so far are:
- Brexit is (or was perceived as) more economically risky but less 'taboo' than Trump. Says to me, that a) people who vote GOP for their wallet, or who are unlikely to be targeted by Trump (middle class white republicans) are not that likely to switch to Dems even if they dont really support Trumps policies, and b) a lot of Shy Trumpets (more even than shy leavers). Both favour Trump
- Brexit had a small but important group of 'Globalist Brexiteer' types - most of this forum's leavers for example - if that group made up just 5% of the electorate it was the winning 5% for leave. I don't see any equivalent for Trump, the Dan Hannan types are all for Hillary - so advantage Clinton
- Electoral College system - seems like the democrats have an inbuilt advantage as it stands. means it's not just a case of winning the national vote, so Trump could win that and still lose.
If I had to guess I would give a 51-49% victory for Trump in the national vote, and a small win in the electoral college.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
The Skittles analogy used to be M&Ms until Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin then people posting the meme started using skittles instead as Trayvon had been carrying Skittles.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Miss Plato, those changes make sense. A while ago I (with Jo Zebedee) did a book launch event on Twitter, and a slight problem was when various people replied to one thread of conversation. Even with a short hashtag (#JoThad), the multiple usernames meant tweets had to be about half their usual size.
The Dalai Lama spoke to the European Parliament yesterday which has provoked an angry response in Beijing. Which ironically may make the Chinese look a little more favorably towards London
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
The Skittles analogy used to be M&Ms until Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin then people posting the meme started using skittles instead as Trayvon had been carrying Skittles.
wow. another racist meme from the trumps. what a surprise!
collective punishment is never a good idea and goes against western ideals imo.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
To be honest i'm not sure they have another option. Pitching for the orange book/osbornite ecodry/soclib types is the other option, but Farron is the wrong leader for that anyway. Also not sure there's enough of those votes available yet - May will be careful to not veer too hard to the right and risk losing those votes.
Indeed targeting a few Labour voters is now better for the LDs now than targeting Tories
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
The Skittles analogy used to be M&Ms until Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin then people posting the meme started using skittles instead as Trayvon had been carrying Skittles.
Yes, I know. As I said, this is truly the meme election. So far we've had the alt-right, pepe the frog and now skittles. Who would have thought that a bunch of bored teenagers on /pol/ would have so much influence.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
And Hillary blinks
Fox Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
And Hillary blinks
Fox Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
That is honestly the first sign I've seen from the Clinton camp that they are now in it to win it. Liberal posturing against Trump has gotten them nowhere.
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
To be honest i'm not sure they have another option. Pitching for the orange book/osbornite ecodry/soclib types is the other option, but Farron is the wrong leader for that anyway. Also not sure there's enough of those votes available yet - May will be careful to not veer too hard to the right and risk losing those votes.
Indeed targeting a few Labour voters is now better for the LDs now than targeting Tories
If May gets pushed towards hard Brexit by these new Tory pressure groups, then the LibDems are already well positioned for the more moderate Tories.
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
And Hillary blinks
Fox Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
That is honestly the first sign I've seen from the Clinton camp that they are now in it to win it. Liberal posturing against Trump has gotten them nowhere.
And how does she respond to the charge "So why haven't you done it for the past 8 years in Govt. then Hillary?"
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
On the other hand, Trump is more likely to come up with some off-the-cuff zinger that floors Clinton and plunges her whole campaign into crisis somehow. I hope not. Certainly be required viewing, shame it is so late at night.
Fox Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton talks tougher about my supporters than she does about Islamic terrorists https://t.co/iemw2kGwdW
Hillary’s disdain for large swathes of Americans will keep coming back to bite her on the arse.
It's an amazing zinger from Trump - and dead right. Hillary's spent so much time parading illegal immigrants and liberal posturing, she's totally misread the public mood - and her media cronies haven't helped a jot by arguing about the meaning of 'terrorist' or 'bomb'.
£1300, plus about £30 worth of internal cabling which I won't list here. That is the basis of a pretty awesome PC, if you want to go for broke then you can get a GTX 1080 instead of the 1070 which adds about £200 to the build cost, taking you to the upper limit of your budget.
Edit: If you're not building immediately you may sneak in a Kaby Lake processor which will bring a bit of a boost as well.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
And how does she respond to the charge "So why haven't you done it for the past 8 years in Govt. then Hillary?"
Well the issue is that her current policy is to increase the number of migrants, hopefully she is preparing the ground to reduce that and either stick to the 110k pledged by Obama or go lower still.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
It makes Clinton "Deplorables" comment even more stupid. If she stuck to the high ground when Trump does some offensive comment she could say well that I don't resort to that level, I am serious candidate etc etc etc....
BBC reports today Farron will propose higher taxes to pay for the NHS and a merger of the NHS and social care and a scrapping of primary school SATS. Combined with his commitment to hold a referendum on the Brexit terms he is clearly pitching for moderate social democratic Labour voters who voted for Ed Miliband but for whom Corbyn is too hard Left
One gets the sense that Farron has never seen a tax that he doesn't like.
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
There are a few seats like Cambridge and Twickenham where that vote could be crucial. With the LDs down to just 8 seats even 2 or 3 gains would at least get them into double figures
To be honest i'm not sure they have another option. Pitching for the orange book/osbornite ecodry/soclib types is the other option, but Farron is the wrong leader for that anyway. Also not sure there's enough of those votes available yet - May will be careful to not veer too hard to the right and risk losing those votes.
Indeed targeting a few Labour voters is now better for the LDs now than targeting Tories
If May gets pushed towards hard Brexit by these new Tory pressure groups, then the LibDems are already well positioned for the more moderate Tories.
Not really, the party of EUphillia will not appeal to Tory voters who voted remain.
Fox Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton talks tougher about my supporters than she does about Islamic terrorists https://t.co/iemw2kGwdW
Hillary’s disdain for large swathes of Americans will keep coming back to bite her on the arse.
It's an amazing zinger from Trump - and dead right. Hillary's spent so much time parading illegal immigrants and liberal posturing, she's totally misread the public mood - and her media cronies haven't helped a jot by arguing about the meaning of 'terrorist' or 'bomb'.
I don't really get attempted big outcry over Trump calling a bomb a bomb. Do we honestly think a billionaire New Yorker, who has secret service 24/7 won't have been informed that it was a bomb straight away?
The US media are making the mistake with Trump as with Farage. Everything he says has to be an outcry, a disgrace, etc. But then people start to say but he was right on this point...
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Don't go quoting actual numbers at her, they're part of the "MSM conspiracy"
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
It makes Clinton "Deplorables" comment even more stupid. If she stuck to the high ground when Trump does some offensive comment she could say well that I don't resort to that level, I am serious candidate etc etc etc....
At this stage of the presidential race, Clinton is nowhere near where she had hoped to be. She knows how damaging the health issue was for her and needed to shift the narrative, but as with so many politicians before her, she has merely opened another line of attack that could turn out to be every bit as unhelpful.
Clinton should by now be presenting herself as Presidential, a safe pair of hands able to lead America, instead she looks haggard and sounds like a bitter third rater.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
It makes Clinton "Deplorables" comment even more stupid. If she stuck to the high ground when Trump does some offensive comment she could say well that I don't resort to that level, I am serious candidate etc etc etc....
At this stage of the presidential race, Clinton is nowhere near where she had hoped to be. She knows how damaging the health issue was for her and needed to shift the narrative, but as with so many politicians before her, she has merely opened another line of attack that could turn out to be every bit as unhelpful.
Clinton should by now be presenting herself as Presidential, a safe pair of hands able to lead American, instead she looks haggard and sounds like a bitter third rater.
The health scare again was so badly handled. Desperately lying and spinning from the outset. Played right that could have got her sympathy, instead even Democrats were going what are you doing...When they finally got the "powering through" spin out there it was too late, everybody had heard what the Clinton campaign had said and been able to match it with the video, and then Clinton lied again....
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
I think Trump's Achilles heel is his braggart manner. That just totally undermines any sensible point he wants to make. I'm thinking a thread reviewing his performances during the primaries is overdue.
He took down over a dozen experienced campaigners - Hillary just had Bernie and scraped it.
He's very good at seeing a weakness and exploiting it. Also wondering if Farage is assisting at all. GOP/Trumpism is a bit rich for his blood - but his style won a lot of votes here, that may appeal to the more middle-ish GOPs in the US.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
They'all be tweeting that irrespective of what Trump actually says in the debate. Trump's job is to make those accusations seem absurd by not making it personal and keeping to his script. Good luck to those preparing him though, not an easy job!!
£1300, plus about £30 worth of internal cabling which I won't list here. That is the basis of a pretty awesome PC, if you want to go for broke then you can get a GTX 1080 instead of the 1070 which adds about £200 to the build cost, taking you to the upper limit of your budget.
Edit: If you're not building immediately you may sneak in a Kaby Lake processor which will bring a bit of a boost as well.
That's brilliant thanks. I like the 750-watt power supply: IM (not very strong) E the biggest issue in upgrading a PC is not available slots, but power supply. Given the 10-series Nvidia cards are less power-hungry than their predecessors, it should mean there's plenty to spare.
I might also up the HD to 1TB, though I envisage most of my 'ordinary' day-to-day tasks will be done on my old PC - this will be purely for gaming. Gone are the days I needed a PC that I could wipe regularly for work.
Also like the i7
One thing I might change is the case: I've always quit liked large full cases rather than midi/mini ones, though I'm not sure that size is really needed now external drives are so available and capacious. Any thoughts about case size, especially wrt cooling?
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
And Hillary blinks
Fox Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
That is honestly the first sign I've seen from the Clinton camp that they are now in it to win it. Liberal posturing against Trump has gotten them nowhere.
The Liberal posturing has been designed to get Bernie's dreamers back on board. Only a few contrarians amongst his erstwhile supporters would vote for Trump but the much bigger risk is that they do not vote at all.
The truth is that Clinton is boringly centralist on most things, probably a bit more of a Cameroon than a Blairite. In having to portray herself as more liberal than she is she has given Trump opportunities. At the debates she needs to get back to her centralist positions to establish the safe pair of hands meme.
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
And Hillary blinks
Fox Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
That is honestly the first sign I've seen from the Clinton camp that they are now in it to win it. Liberal posturing against Trump has gotten them nowhere.
The Liberal posturing has been designed to get Bernie's dreamers back on board. Only a few contrarians amongst his erstwhile supporters would vote for Trump but the much bigger risk is that they do not vote at all.
The truth is that Clinton is boringly centralist on most things, probably a bit more of a Cameroon than a Blairite. In having to portray herself as more liberal than she is she has given Trump opportunities. At the debates she needs to get back to her centralist positions to establish the safe pair of hands meme.
I think Clinton is to the Left of Cameron.
She strikes me as Cherie Blair, running as a mixture of Yvette Cooper and Gordon Brown.
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
I'm also rather curious about why the group doing this work is talking about head transplants: surely helping paraplegics et al to regain movement in their own bodies is a much better aim?
A pure guess: do damaged nerves regrow in such a way that this technique will not work a short period after the injury? That certainly happened with my ankle, where all the Prof could eventually do was remove the nerve (sural, I think) which had become a knotted mass after many years and operations.
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
It makes Clinton "Deplorables" comment even more stupid. If she stuck to the high ground when Trump does some offensive comment she could say well that I don't resort to that level, I am serious candidate etc etc etc....
At this stage of the presidential race, Clinton is nowhere near where she had hoped to be. She knows how damaging the health issue was for her and needed to shift the narrative, but as with so many politicians before her, she has merely opened another line of attack that could turn out to be every bit as unhelpful.
Clinton should by now be presenting herself as Presidential, a safe pair of hands able to lead American, instead she looks haggard and sounds like a bitter third rater.
The health scare again was so badly handled. Desperately lying and spinning from the outset. Played right that could have got her sympathy, instead even Democrats were going what are you doing...When they finally got the "powering through" spin out there it was too late, everybody had heard what the Clinton campaign had said and been able to match it with the video, and then Clinton lied again....
It was so stupid. 6 others in her office had had pneumonia apparently.
If she'd said - I've a bug that's going about and being treated for it, but I really wanted to attend the 911 memorial for a little bit to show my respect - she'd no PR problem.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
But that's of limited profitability for Clinton because so many people find her nasty as well.
Trump's main task should be to reassure female voters (so criticising Clinton is ok so long as it doesn't roll over into misogynism)
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
It makes Clinton "Deplorables" comment even more stupid. If she stuck to the high ground when Trump does some offensive comment she could say well that I don't resort to that level, I am serious candidate etc etc etc....
At this stage of the presidential race, Clinton is nowhere near where she had hoped to be. She knows how damaging the health issue was for her and needed to shift the narrative, but as with so many politicians before her, she has merely opened another line of attack that could turn out to be every bit as unhelpful.
Clinton should by now be presenting herself as Presidential, a safe pair of hands able to lead American, instead she looks haggard and sounds like a bitter third rater.
The health scare again was so badly handled. Desperately lying and spinning from the outset. Played right that could have got her sympathy, instead even Democrats were going what are you doing...When they finally got the "powering through" spin out there it was too late, everybody had heard what the Clinton campaign had said and been able to match it with the video, and then Clinton lied again....
On the subject of sympathy, anyone else reminded of that episode of "Whoops apocalypse" where one campaign team has their candidate shot to gain sympathy, only for the ambulance taking him to ER to run over his opponent?
£1300, plus about £30 worth of internal cabling which I won't list here. That is the basis of a pretty awesome PC, if you want to go for broke then you can get a GTX 1080 instead of the 1070 which adds about £200 to the build cost, taking you to the upper limit of your budget.
Edit: If you're not building immediately you may sneak in a Kaby Lake processor which will bring a bit of a boost as well.
That's brilliant thanks. I like the 750-watt power supply: IM (not very strong) E the biggest issue in upgrading a PC is not available slots, but power supply. Given the 10-series Nvidia cards are less power-hungry than their predecessors, it should mean there's plenty to spare.
I might also up the HD to 1TB, though I envisage most of my 'ordinary' day-to-day tasks will be done on my old PC - this will be purely for gaming. Gone are the days I needed a PC that I could wipe regularly for work.
Also like the i7
One thing I might change is the case: I've always quit liked large full cases rather than midi/mini ones, though I'm not sure that size is really needed now external drives are so available and capacious. Any thoughts about case size, especially wrt cooling?
Again, thanks. Much appreciated.
You can have an additional standard HDD in there as well for media storage, 500GB is usually enough for the OS and any games you have installed.
A full tower case is fine as well, but I would stick with the midi one, they take up less room and with the new large fans there is less need for huge towers. The system shouldn't run that hot anyway, the 1070 is fairly decent for power draw and the i7 is now on the final revision which makes it very cool.
No worries though, I like when people get on the PC gaming train! One like this will take you through to 2020 IMO before you need to upgrade the GPU, 2021 if you get the 1080.
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
Just seen the Trump skittles poster advert. Truly this is the meme election. Still quite a powerful message and hits Hillary on her 200,000 Syrian migrants pledge. If she doesn't drop that before the next debate Trump is going to eviscerate her, hopefully her campaign staff have the sense to make the announcement to reduce from 110k to 55k the number of refugees that will come over and to use the Canadian solution of women and children only with no chance of family reunions. Those are the terms, take it or leave it.
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
Clinton just doesn't get it. A Washington DC Juncker?
My gut tells me Trump wins this because she is making all the mistakes of the Remain campaign, and worse, and I can't recall a democratic candidate I've disliked more. If I feel like that, on this side of the Atlantic, then how the hell is she going down in the US?
It's a sign.
Say what you like about Cameron (and I have) at least he recognised he was losing in the final weeks, and realised the problem - even if he felt trapped by the campaign and that he could do nothing about it.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
I think Trump's Achilles heel is his braggart manner. That just totally undermines any sensible point he wants to make. I'm thinking a thread reviewing his performances during the primaries is overdue.
He took down over a dozen experienced campaigners - Hillary just had Bernie and scraped it.
He's very good at seeing a weakness and exploiting it. Also wondering if Farage is assisting at all. GOP/Trumpism is a bit rich for his blood - but his style won a lot of votes here, that may appeal to the more middle-ish GOPs in the US.
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
Clinton just doesn't get it. A Washington DC Juncker?
My gut tells me Trump wins this because she is making all the mistakes of the Remain campaign, and worse, and I can't recall am democratic candidate I've disliked more. If I feel like that, on this side of the Atlantic, the how the hell is she going down in the US?
It's a sign.
Say what you like about Cameron (and I have) at least he recognised he was losing in the final weeks, and realised the problem - even if he felt trapped by the campaign and that he could do nothing about it.
Cameron's Number 10 address two days before the vote was a dead giveaway.
That Obama is pleading with blacks to vote for Hillary - because they voted for him and he's black makes no sense. And if you don't vote for Hillary, you're sexist...
It's the most bizarre messaging. I honestly can't see where they're going. I read dozens of tweets/articles from both sides and Team Hillary are doing a terrible job of this. It's very Remain - full of name calling and snobby destain.
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
nope. she needs to counter attack the message and not give in to his racist horse trading. The usa bombed syria, they have to help look after their regugees
That's how to lose an election. Better to compromise and win than virtue signal and lose.
Depends - if it comes across as insincere (like Labour's immigration mugs last election) then it only has the effect of angering her own supporters without convincing the opponents. A climbdown says she recognizes that less is the way to go with refugees - so why vote for Hillary's 55k when you can have Trump's 0?
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
Clinton just doesn't get it. A Washington DC Juncker?
My gut tells me Trump wins this because she is making all the mistakes of the Remain campaign, and worse, and I can't recall am democratic candidate I've disliked more. If I feel like that, on this side of the Atlantic, the how the hell is she going down in the US?
It's a sign.
Say what you like about Cameron (and I have) at least he recognised he was losing in the final weeks, and realised the problem - even if he felt trapped by the campaign and that he could do nothing about it.
Cameron's Number 10 address two days before the vote was a dead giveaway.
That Obama is pleading with blacks to vote for Hillary - because they voted for him and he's black makes no sense. And if you don't vote for Hillary, you're sexist...
It's the most bizarre messaging. I honestly can't see where they're going. I read dozens of tweets/articles from both sides and Team Hillary are doing a terrible job of this. It's very Remain - full of name calling and snobby destain.
I think you mean disdain.
Destain was something that would have got her husband out of being impeached!
"Hillary’s motivations were clear. She flunked her first pseudo debate with Trump on NBC’s Commander in Chief forum earlier this month, placed herself in hot water when she declared half of Trump’s supporters were in a basket of deplorables, and further sowed seeds of mistrust when she lied about her health. She had to change the narrative. "
She flunked the commander in chief forum so badly opinion polling said she won 42-to-40?
Is that right? NBC Twitter poll gave it to trump 63-37
Not really, the party of EUphillia will not appeal to Tory voters who voted remain.
It's certainly been enlightening watching the Conservatives on here jibing and sneering at the Lib Dems at every opportunity and what more appropriate time than during the Party's Conference.
Tim's speech today is of personal and political significance. As an LD who voted LEAVE on June 23rd, I'm concerned at some of the hand-wringing from Farron and one or two others. We voted to leave the EU - narrowly but decisively - and that instruction from the electorate has to be acted upon.
The question then becomes whether the outcome of the Article 50 negotiation - "a new deal for Britain" (you heard it here before May, Hammond, Davis, Fallon et al repeat it ad nauseam in 2019) should itself be subject to a referendum.
The problem with that thesis is there is no contingency for another "No" vote. If the May negotiation is rejected, what then ? Could we go back and have another go ? Plainly not.
There is of course a mechanism for passing judgement on the negotiation outcome and it's called a General Election. Parties putting themselves forward have to explain what they would do if elected and that would include a new round of negotiations with the EU to "soften" or "harden" the final deal as appropriate or even seeking to re-join the EU.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a new Government to seek to re-negotiate the details of our divorce from the EU but it would need the EU to want that to happen. Hypothetically, if the Article 50 negotiations left us out of the Single Market in 2019 and in 2020 the current Government fell and was replaced by a party or parties wanting us to go back into the Single Market, could we negotiate renewed access to that on a basis akin to Norway ?
I want to hear Tim say today he respects the vote, he wants the Article 50 negotiations to be successful and transparent but the "red lines" include continued membership of the Single Market and if the result of the A50 negotiations is we have to depart the Single Market because we no longer accept Freedom of Movement, how he would persuade the British people that membership of the Single Market is more important and beneficial than curtailing Freedom of Movement.
Oddly enough, I think Theresa May has a similar task but both leaders face a strong anti-immigration (as distinct from anti-immigrant) mood and that, rather like perceptions on crime, isn't going to be assuaged by statistics or gimmicks.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
Trump is an obnoxious, racist bully. His fails the beer test even more than Hillary does.
I think it's perfectly obvious that the terrorist activity will tend to benefit Trump - I'm not a natural supporter, but even I don't get people whinging about his calling a bomb a bomb before it's 100% proved. As Paul Waugh says today, Clinton looks wonkish and anaemic on the issue. She needs to be careful that this isn't a "Dukakis moment" - Dukakis was IMO a good candidate who would have made a good President, but fell short when expected to sound sufficiently fierce.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
As I've said before, Trump's problem in the debates is going to be striking the right tone against Hillary. Her people will be looking to shout out from Twitter "Look! The Nasty Man said Nasty Things about Hillary in a Nasty Way. Misogynist!!!!!" I'm not sure Trump has enough variety in his approach to disarm that attack line against him, whether it is fair on the night or not.
Does it matter what gets Tweeted? Twitter is no more the USA than it is Britain.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
Because in recognising the problem she will be protecting her WWC flank from Trump. Hillary isn't ever going to win the votes of people looking for 0 migration, they are all voting for Trump whatever happens. However, in pledging to increase the number from 110k to 200k she is moving against the tide of people generally wanting less migration, especially third world migration. If she moves to change that pledge, I've seen that there is a problem and we need to do more to screen out terrorists, we're going to reduce the number to 55k and limit migration to women and children only. That grabs her a share of voters who are currently in Trump's camp but may not be looking for a reduction to zero migrants.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
Clinton just doesn't get it. A Washington DC Juncker?
My gut tells me Trump wins this because she is making all the mistakes of the Remain campaign, and worse, and I can't recall am democratic candidate I've disliked more. If I feel like that, on this side of the Atlantic, the how the hell is she going down in the US?
It's a sign.
Say what you like about Cameron (and I have) at least he recognised he was losing in the final weeks, and realised the problem - even if he felt trapped by the campaign and that he could do nothing about it.
Cameron's Number 10 address two days before the vote was a dead giveaway.
That Obama is pleading with blacks to vote for Hillary - because they voted for him and he's black makes no sense. And if you don't vote for Hillary, you're sexist...
It's the most bizarre messaging. I honestly can't see where they're going. I read dozens of tweets/articles from both sides and Team Hillary are doing a terrible job of this. It's very Remain - full of name calling and snobby destain.
Hillary, like Remain, is selling no positive message; it's all 'Trump is awful'. Even if that's true (and it is - check out his latest comments about the arrest and medical care of the suspected bomber, which come close to legitimising police executions: no 'protect and preserve the constitution' here), Trump has a motivated base; she doesn't. She still needs to get her vote out, which they may or may not do if they think poorly enough of her.
FWIW, I think Hillary winning a weak mandate while the country ensuring that her power is limited from the off by electing a GOP majority again in both Houses is still the most likely outcome. But a Trump win is still a very real possibility.
It's very telling to see what campaigns are actually doing, rather than what they say.
The first time I knew that Remain were in real trouble (rather than just hoping for Leave) was when the pattern of campaigning became clear in the final weeks - Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and deriding 'Little Englanders'.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
Yes, I think that works for white men.
Clinton is gambling on the US demographics that favour her, which might or might not work.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
What's Trump's path to 270?
Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. He's winning the toss ups in all 4. He's even got an outside chance in Michigan.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
What's Trump's path to 270?
Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. He's winning the toss ups in all 4. He's even got an outside chance in Michigan.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
What's Trump's path to 270?
Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. He's winning the toss ups in all 4. He's even got an outside chance in Michigan.
I don't think he is winning Colorado at the moment and it is essential if he can't get Pennsylvania. RCP have Clinton +3.7 but the polling is thin.
There are still far more ways for Clinton to win this and that remains the most likely outcome but Trump needs to break through into a national lead to get the level of swing he needs in the battleground states.
It's very telling to see what campaigns are actually doing, rather than what they say.
The first time I knew that Remain were in real trouble (rather than just hoping for Leave) was when the pattern of campaigning became clear in the final weeks - Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and deriding 'Little Englanders'.
Team Hillary occupying 97% of advertising slots and Trump getting $100m in donations under $200 speaks volumes.
I think he's going to do it - incredible as that is.
I'd no idea he was so interested in politics until this campaign - I thought he was a total media celeb, his Alky Ada comments re 911 were a real surprise.
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
What's Trump's path to 270?
Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada. He's winning the toss ups in all 4. He's even got an outside chance in Michigan.
I don't think he is winning Colorado at the moment and it is essential if he can't get Pennsylvania. RCP have Clinton +3.7 but the polling is thin.
There are still far more ways for Clinton to win this and that remains the most likely outcome but Trump needs to break through into a national lead to get the level of swing he needs in the battleground states.
The debates will do for Hillary, the more people she of her the more they dislike her. She's politics' Yoko Ono.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff..... It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
Yes, I think that works for white men.
Clinton is gambling on the US demographics that favour her, which might or might not work.
Comments
Even if he is pitching to that vote, is it sufficiently concentrated to allow them to win seats? That seems challenging.
If he's not specific though, then his policy is no better than Ed Miliband and Ed Balls' magic money tree, and we say how that went down a year ago.
Tom Watson wants to reduce the number of Labour supporters who vote in party elections. It's Corbyns enemies who want a new electorate.
The Lib Dem position on Referendum 2: Refer Harder is a mountain of stupidity.
For us to have a firm deal that can be voted upon, we need to have invoked Article 50 and for a deal to be hammered out.
At that stage, if we decline the deal, we leave on WTO terms. From a Lib Dem perspective, that's undoubtedly a bad thing (because the yellows are committing themselves to loving the EU).
So, what's the point? The choices will only be to leave on fully-detached or slightly less-detached terms.
It is the wankiest of all worlds.
For example, in Wisconsin, the RCP average has Clinton +5.3 but this is based on 2 polls in August and 1 in June. If there had been more recently polling, we would have expected this state to tighten as well. Nate Silver adjusts all the swing states in line with the national polls so he has Clinton +3.8 in Wisconsin on his polls only forecast.
From today, Twitter is cutting back on what types of content will use up its 140-character limit.
Now, @names in replies, media attachments (like photos, GIFs, videos, and polls) and quoted Tweets will no longer be counted against the valuable 140 characters that make up a tweet. This allows for richer public conversations that are easier to follow on Twitter and ensures people can attach media to tweets without sacrificing the characters they have to express themselves.
https://blog.bufferapp.com/longer-tweets-coming-twitter?utm_content=buffer8b0cc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
- Brexit is (or was perceived as) more economically risky but less 'taboo' than Trump. Says to me, that a) people who vote GOP for their wallet, or who are unlikely to be targeted by Trump (middle class white republicans) are not that likely to switch to Dems even if they dont really support Trumps policies, and b) a lot of Shy Trumpets (more even than shy leavers). Both favour Trump
- Brexit had a small but important group of 'Globalist Brexiteer' types - most of this forum's leavers for example - if that group made up just 5% of the electorate it was the winning 5% for leave. I don't see any equivalent for Trump, the Dan Hannan types are all for Hillary - so advantage Clinton
- Electoral College system - seems like the democrats have an inbuilt advantage as it stands. means it's not just a case of winning the national vote, so Trump could win that and still lose.
If I had to guess I would give a 51-49% victory for Trump in the national vote, and a small win in the electoral college.
What interesting times.
collective punishment is never a good idea and goes against western ideals imo.
Even holding it at 110k would be a start. Increasing the numbers is a completely catastrophic policy pledge, especially in light of the current terrorist attacks being carried out by a foreign national who was naturalised.
Her best card is the debates, in which I think Trump will still struggle to look Presidential.
Fox
Hillary Clinton calls for "tough vetting" and "a better visa system" following this weekend's terror attacks https://t.co/JDIdIgGPtf
Trump goes for the jugular
Fox
Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton talks tougher about my supporters than she does about Islamic terrorists https://t.co/iemw2kGwdW
"It is important to remember that Labour is not now and has never been a socialist party."
In a nutshell, the civil war that is engulfing Labour.
Just seen footage on Sky of rat and dog that's had spinal cord refused and mobile again.
Amazing.
Anyway, this is what I would build with your budget:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-z170a-g43-plus-intel-z170-socket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-313-ms.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i7-6700k-4.0ghz-skylake-socket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-581-in.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/corsair-dominator-platinum-32gb-2x16gb-ddr4-pc4-21300c15-2666mhz-dual-channel-kit-black-cmd32gx-my-48r-cs.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-geforce-gtx-1070-armor-oc-8192mb-gddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-32c-ms.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/corsair-builder-series-cx-750w-modular-80-plus-bronze-power-supply-cp-9020061-uk-ca-118-cs.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/samsung-500gb-750-evo-ssd-2.5-sata-6gbps-solid-state-drive-hd-229-sa.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/fractal-design-define-s-midi-tower-case-black-window-ca-029-fd.html
£1300, plus about £30 worth of internal cabling which I won't list here. That is the basis of a pretty awesome PC, if you want to go for broke then you can get a GTX 1080 instead of the 1070 which adds about £200 to the build cost, taking you to the upper limit of your budget.
Edit: If you're not building immediately you may sneak in a Kaby Lake processor which will bring a bit of a boost as well.
The US media are making the mistake with Trump as with Farage. Everything he says has to be an outcry, a disgrace, etc. But then people start to say but he was right on this point...
Clinton should by now be presenting herself as Presidential, a safe pair of hands able to lead America, instead she looks haggard and sounds like a bitter third rater.
He took down over a dozen experienced campaigners - Hillary just had Bernie and scraped it.
He's very good at seeing a weakness and exploiting it. Also wondering if Farage is assisting at all. GOP/Trumpism is a bit rich for his blood - but his style won a lot of votes here, that may appeal to the more middle-ish GOPs in the US.
I might also up the HD to 1TB, though I envisage most of my 'ordinary' day-to-day tasks will be done on my old PC - this will be purely for gaming. Gone are the days I needed a PC that I could wipe regularly for work.
Also like the i7
One thing I might change is the case: I've always quit liked large full cases rather than midi/mini ones, though I'm not sure that size is really needed now external drives are so available and capacious. Any thoughts about case size, especially wrt cooling?
Again, thanks. Much appreciated.
David Cameron recorded a “frank” monthly audio diary throughout his time as prime minister to keep a historical record of his time in office.
Mr Cameron made digital recordings of 53 hours of conversations with his friend Lord Finkelstein, The Times columnist, covering his foreign and domestic encounters and describing his government as it unfolded.
The pair would meet each month in secrecy for about an hour. The encounters would normally take place in the evening in the Downing Street flat, although sometimes they met for lunch.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7bc8765e-7ea8-11e6-9862-c87336845bcf
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106382-head-transplant-teams-new-animal-tests-fail-to-convince-critics/
I'm also rather curious about why the group doing this work is talking about head transplants: surely helping paraplegics et al to regain movement in their own bodies is a much better aim?
A pure guess: do damaged nerves regrow in such a way that this technique will not work a short period after the injury? That certainly happened with my ankle, where all the Prof could eventually do was remove the nerve (sural, I think) which had become a knotted mass after many years and operations.
https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNews/status/773690322471747584?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
If she'd said - I've a bug that's going about and being treated for it, but I really wanted to attend the 911 memorial for a little bit to show my respect - she'd no PR problem.
Trump's main task should be to reassure female voters (so criticising Clinton is ok so long as it doesn't roll over into misogynism)
If he can get that balance right, he wins.
A full tower case is fine as well, but I would stick with the midi one, they take up less room and with the new large fans there is less need for huge towers. The system shouldn't run that hot anyway, the 1070 is fairly decent for power draw and the i7 is now on the final revision which makes it very cool.
No worries though, I like when people get on the PC gaming train! One like this will take you through to 2020 IMO before you need to upgrade the GPU, 2021 if you get the 1080.
My gut tells me Trump wins this because she is making all the mistakes of the Remain campaign, and worse, and I can't recall a democratic candidate I've disliked more. If I feel like that, on this side of the Atlantic, then how the hell is she going down in the US?
It's a sign.
Say what you like about Cameron (and I have) at least he recognised he was losing in the final weeks, and realised the problem - even if he felt trapped by the campaign and that he could do nothing about it.
71% of registered voters heard something about or watched the Commander-in-Chief Forum on NBC News
42% of these voters say Clinton did better, while 40% say Donald Trump did better
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/09/13/yougoveconomist-poll-september-10-13-2016/
That Obama is pleading with blacks to vote for Hillary - because they voted for him and he's black makes no sense. And if you don't vote for Hillary, you're sexist...
It's the most bizarre messaging. I honestly can't see where they're going. I read dozens of tweets/articles from both sides and Team Hillary are doing a terrible job of this. It's very Remain - full of name calling and snobby destain.
Destain was something that would have got her husband out of being impeached!
Tim's speech today is of personal and political significance. As an LD who voted LEAVE on June 23rd, I'm concerned at some of the hand-wringing from Farron and one or two others. We voted to leave the EU - narrowly but decisively - and that instruction from the electorate has to be acted upon.
The question then becomes whether the outcome of the Article 50 negotiation - "a new deal for Britain" (you heard it here before May, Hammond, Davis, Fallon et al repeat it ad nauseam in 2019) should itself be subject to a referendum.
The problem with that thesis is there is no contingency for another "No" vote. If the May negotiation is rejected, what then ? Could we go back and have another go ? Plainly not.
There is of course a mechanism for passing judgement on the negotiation outcome and it's called a General Election. Parties putting themselves forward have to explain what they would do if elected and that would include a new round of negotiations with the EU to "soften" or "harden" the final deal as appropriate or even seeking to re-join the EU.
It would be perfectly reasonable for a new Government to seek to re-negotiate the details of our divorce from the EU but it would need the EU to want that to happen. Hypothetically, if the Article 50 negotiations left us out of the Single Market in 2019 and in 2020 the current Government fell and was replaced by a party or parties wanting us to go back into the Single Market, could we negotiate renewed access to that on a basis akin to Norway ?
I want to hear Tim say today he respects the vote, he wants the Article 50 negotiations to be successful and transparent but the "red lines" include continued membership of the Single Market and if the result of the A50 negotiations is we have to depart the Single Market because we no longer accept Freedom of Movement, how he would persuade the British people that membership of the Single Market is more important and beneficial than curtailing Freedom of Movement.
Oddly enough, I think Theresa May has a similar task but both leaders face a strong anti-immigration (as distinct from anti-immigrant) mood and that, rather like perceptions on crime, isn't going to be assuaged by statistics or gimmicks.
I think USA elections, more than any, go to lowest common denominator stuff.....
It's about charisma stupid/ the beer test....you have to go along way to find the least charismatic elected POTUS...
Considering Hillary possesses the charm of a used tea bag.......Trump's supporters are just going to be more motivated, and he'll win. And it's not the campaign, or the policies, or competence, or his wall that'll do it. It's the fact that Hillary fails the beer test miserably.
If he loses, I won't be disappointed.
If he wins, I'll use the money to build a fallout shelter and buy drinks whilst the world burns.
FWIW, I think Hillary winning a weak mandate while the country ensuring that her power is limited from the off by electing a GOP majority again in both Houses is still the most likely outcome. But a Trump win is still a very real possibility.
It's very telling to see what campaigns are actually doing, rather than what they say.
The first time I knew that Remain were in real trouble (rather than just hoping for Leave) was when the pattern of campaigning became clear in the final weeks - Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and deriding 'Little Englanders'.
Clinton is gambling on the US demographics that favour her, which might or might not work.
There are still far more ways for Clinton to win this and that remains the most likely outcome but Trump needs to break through into a national lead to get the level of swing he needs in the battleground states.
I think he's going to do it - incredible as that is.
I'd no idea he was so interested in politics until this campaign - I thought he was a total media celeb, his Alky Ada comments re 911 were a real surprise.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term
Knocked on a good which opened wafted on cannabis smoke.
Bredraggled long haired student states blearily out "Hey! How did you jump out of my TV, Baldrick!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIsb4OYYbZ8
AP: Paris Prosecutors' office says there have been eight new arrests in connection with the Bastille Day attack in Nice in France