A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Exactly, which is why Ron Paul won back to back presidential victories.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my motorbike tour of East Germany.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
they are not dropping him because of his principles. They are dropping him because he admitted to grabbing women's pussys without their permission
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
The issue with core Republicans is (a) they hate HRC more than Trump (generally) and (b) if HRC wins, the Supreme Court will be lost to the Republicans for a generation. I think most will grit their teeth.
I agree with weejonnie - the GOP Establishment has been looking to get rid of Trump all throughout the campaign so their calls are likely to be viewed cynically.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Exactly, which is why Ron Paul won back to back presidential victories.
Ron Paul was a loony tune with no mass appeal, no charisma and only 500k followers.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
they are not dropping him because of his principles. They are dropping him because he admitted to grabbing women's pussys without their permission
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
they are not dropping him because of his principles. They are dropping him because he admitted to grabbing women's pussys without their permission
Well, that's a lie isn't it?
We have all heard the tape. ny point is, i didnt realise being sexist and rapey makes u anti-establishment
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
they are not dropping him because of his principles. They are dropping him because he admitted to grabbing women's pussys without their permission
Well, that's a lie isn't it?
We have all heard the tape. ny point is, i didnt realise being sexist and rapey makes u anti-establishment
If you've heard the tape, why are you lying about what it says?
It could bring out the non-voters for him, and maybe a few working-class Democrats. On the other hand some core Republicans who were planning to grit their teeth might now feel enabled to follow their leaders' lead by writing-in or voting Johnson/McMullin.
The issue with core Republicans is (a) they hate HRC more than Trump (generally) and (b) if HRC wins, the Supreme Court will be lost to the Republicans for a generation. I think most will grit their teeth.
I agree with weejonnie - the GOP Establishment has been looking to get rid of Trump all throughout the campaign so their calls are likely to be viewed cynically.
if that chimed with the RNC's private polling, they would be supporting him. The ppp say there private polls have him at 70% with republicans. Thats not enough
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
If twitter was accurate Ed would have a 200 seat majority right now.......Not a game changer, yet.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
And social media is just the best at getting people to get out is it? Not yet it isn't. Your comments of it being a game changer, in the purported absence of ground operational support, suggests you think social media alone will be enough to win, or else its hardly a game changer, is it?
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
And social media is just the best at getting people to get out is it? Not yet it isn't. Your comments of it being a game changer, in the purported absence of ground operational support, suggests you think social media alone will be enough to win, or else its hardly a game changer, is it?
Then call it social media combined with mass media saturation. Nobody (caveats apply) will be unaware on the day that they have a vote to cast.
Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
And social media is just the best at getting people to get out is it? Not yet it isn't. Your comments of it being a game changer, in the purported absence of ground operational support, suggests you think social media alone will be enough to win, or else its hardly a game changer, is it?
What the Brexit vote showed was that, if people are motivated enough, then they will get out to vote, even if they are typical non-voters. The problem with the US is more whether those non-voters actually can vote given the registration rules.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
And social media is just the best at getting people to get out is it? Not yet it isn't. Your comments of it being a game changer, in the purported absence of ground operational support, suggests you think social media alone will be enough to win, or else its hardly a game changer, is it?
Then call it social media combined with mass media saturation. Nobody (caveats apply) will be unaware on the day that they have a vote to cast. Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
Against a 12 way field that spent all it's opposition research on people other than him.
A most unfair and unworthy statement. The chicken entrails have a far greater chance of being accurate.
La Times may be skewed to the GOP - but presumably the trend would be pretty accurate.
At the moment of course things are not developing necesserilly to Trump's advantage - but there are 4 weeks to go.
The media cycle could move on from Trump's comments, just as it did from Hillary's incident at the 9/11 memorial, which now seems to be forgotten. However, the mass withdrawal of Republican bigwig support looks like the real game-changer.
Does it - Trump is the 'anti-establishment' candidate in effect if not in name. The fact that the establishment are dropping him could be construed positively.
Not in GOTV/campaigning efforts.
The GOP infrastructure have dumped Trump/gone on strike.
It seems inconceivable Trump can win without their day to day/operational support.
Which century are you living in? Social media is the game changer here.
Social media is clearly a relevant factor, but game changer? Where's the evidence for that? Prime Minister Miliband won the social media battles didn't he?
The question is about getting out the votes that are there to be got out.
And social media is just the best at getting people to get out is it? Not yet it isn't. Your comments of it being a game changer, in the purported absence of ground operational support, suggests you think social media alone will be enough to win, or else its hardly a game changer, is it?
Then call it social media combined with mass media saturation. Nobody (caveats apply) will be unaware on the day that they have a vote to cast. Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
Against a 12 way field that spent all it's opposition research on people other than him.
And when the field was whittled down and they concentrated all their fire on him, he still won.
Then call it social media combined with mass media saturation. Nobody (caveats apply) will be unaware on the day that they have a vote to cast.
Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
He won a primary campaign which is always disproportionately decided by high motivation voters who are more likely to vote anyway.
Face to face contact is the most likely thing to make someone vote, and time and again it's been proven that it does increase turnout at elections.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup* in the debate.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup in the debate.
I don't think he has, but that won't stop them searching for it.
Then call it social media combined with mass media saturation. Nobody (caveats apply) will be unaware on the day that they have a vote to cast.
Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
He won a primary campaign which is always disproportionately decided by high motivation voters who are more likely to vote anyway.
Face to face contact is the most likely thing to make someone vote, and time and again it's been proven that it does increase turnout at elections.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
The problem, though, is that many Democrat supporters are unenthusiastic about Clinton: you may know who they are but you cannot force them to get out. I posted a survey about College students on another thread that showed, while they back Hillary 48-14 over Trump, the percentage who said they would NOT volunteer for her is 70%, a rise of 7%.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
Meanwhile the Russians have been caught on altering source material.
Quite a few of the Guccifer docs showed alterations under "Track Changes" I believe. Which is why you need to look at all these dumps with a critical eye.
Meanwhile the Russians have been caught on altering source material.
Quite a few of the Guccifer docs showed alterations under "Track Changes" I believe. Which is why you need to look at all these dumps with a critical eye.
Couldn't they have come up with some more scandalous stuff?
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup* in the debate.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup* in the debate.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
She gave him the rope and he hanged himself.
Oh Trump jumped into the elephant trap no doubt about that. For somebody so smart, he knows a lot of words you know, the obvious response would have been to turn it around on to her comments about basket of deplorables and basement dwellers.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Fixed it.
You're too generous, you should have fixed it to "it is"
Meanwhile the Russians have been caught on altering source material.
Quite a few of the Guccifer docs showed alterations under "Track Changes" I believe. Which is why you need to look at all these dumps with a critical eye.
Surely, now they know that people are looking for that, they will just create 'clean' documents showing no changes. So, even if they look okay, they are likely to not be.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Fixed it.
I'd like to say I never blamed my good friend TSE for the error, and if you call Sunil he'll tell you that's true.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Fixed it.
While you're at out can you do something about the double negative in the third paragraph. Corporeal's article is readable and punchy; apostrophes in the wrong places I can take, but double negatives really confuse me.
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup* in the debate.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
The best they'll probably be able to do is find some archive footage of Trump greeting a black person in a slightly unenthusiastic way from about 30 years ago.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Fixed it.
While you're at out can you do something about the double negative in the third paragraph. Corporeal's article is readable and punchy; apostrophes in the wrong places I can take, but double negatives really confuse me.
It is not a double negative. Not only NOT INVESTING in Trump.
You can bet that thousands of Democrat campaigners are frantically searching through the archives trying to find evidence of precisely that.
If he has, Team Clinton will already have it. All of this is being carefully coordinated. I expect a new video outrage Monday and some sort of setup* in the debate.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
The best they'll probably be able to do is find some archive footage of Trump greeting a black person in a slightly unenthusiastic way from about 30 years ago.
Or comments off camera during his TV show filming.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
I read on here that the moderator will be asking the questions
Apparently the Apprentice stuff is even more complicated. Burnett (who is a Trump supporter) has all the outtakes, but doesn't own the rights. MGM bought the rights to the very old shows.
Head of a Clinton Super PAC has said they will pay for any legal fees that come from a leak.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
I read on here that the moderator will be asking the questions
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Going above and beyond. We are now taking over other people's borders too.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Going above and beyond. We are now taking over other people's borders too.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
I read on here that the moderator will be asking the questions
Not much of a town hall....
From what I've read there are two halves. In the first half the moderators ask questions. In the 2nd half its the audience but the moderators know the questions in advance and get to pick who asks.
Anyone else thinking tonights "debate" is going to be like when the BBC question time audience in Leeds absolutley savaged Ed at the last GE? They will be tough on Hillary but Trump will get a pasting.
I read on here that the moderator will be asking the questions
Not much of a town hall....
From what I've read there are two halves. In the first half the moderators ask questions. In the 2nd half its the audience but the moderators know the questions in advance and get to pick who asks.
Are the audience allowed to react this time? Or only Clinton supporters like last time?
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Going above and beyond. We are now taking over other people's borders too.
What did I say about May embracing Putinism?
We weren't embracing it when we put the border in Calais...
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
Indeed, it precedes both countries entry into the EU by 50 years.
However, maintaining the Common Travel Area does mean accepting that there will be no visa requirement for EU/EEA nationals. (This doesn't mean people have the right to reside; Switzerland and Liechtenstein are in Schengen, which means anyone inside the zone can get there without even a passport, but it does not mean you can stay there.)
The Thatcher government, at the height of the Troubles, considered suspending the CTA. But after much agonizing, it was decided that the economic damage to Northern Ireland would be severe, and that - as it was a long and winding border, with few few natural boundaries, and plenty of opportunities to tunnel underneath - it would do little to prevent IRA terrorists from crossing back and forth at will.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Going above and beyond. We are now taking over other people's borders too.
What did I say about May embracing Putinism?
We weren't embracing it when we put the border in Calais...
Not really the same thing. This would be putting an entire sovereign country behind the U.K. border.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Going above and beyond. We are now taking over other people's borders too.
What did I say about May embracing Putinism?
We weren't embracing it when we put the border in Calais...
Not really the same thing. This would be putting an entire sovereign country behind the U.K. border.
I suppose you could think of it as the CTA border.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
To be fair, even before 1973, the UK and Ireland has slightly different entry policies, and that was possible. US citizens, for example, required a visa to visit the UK. But they did not require one for Ireland. In theory, a US citizen could cross into Britain via Ireland.
The issue has always been one of economics: the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland economies around the border are extremely tightly integrated. There will be people that cross the border a dozen times a day in their ordinary business. Policing the border, checking passports, etc., would be (a) expensive, (b) almost certainly not prevent any determined evildoer, and (c) possibly stir up long-dormant Republican sentiment in the area. (Not being able to cross the border for a pint with your cousin because the crossing is now closed for the evening.)
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
I guess the point is that maintaining the CTA means that, in practice, we cannot impose visa restrictions on EU citizens from (for example) Romania. Albeit the route to the UK would be a lot more circuitous than just getting the Megabus from the UK.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
Interestingly, between 1939 and 1952, there were no immigration controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but there were between Great Britain and both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
Interestingly, between 1939 and 1952, there were no immigration controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but there were between Great Britain and both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
In which case, surely all we require is that - if you want residence or to work - then you go to an immigration centre within 7 days of arriving in the UK.
People who want to enter illegally and work illegally can come here on a tourism visa and stay. Why bother going via Ireland and making your life much more complicated?
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
Interestingly, between 1939 and 1952, there were no immigration controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but there were between Great Britain and both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
Unionists will be perfectly pragmatic.
About requiring passport controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? I think they'd regard it as the first stage in the deliberate reunification of Ireland by the British Government.
Interestingly, between 1939 and 1952, there were no immigration controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but there were between Great Britain and both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
Unionists will be perfectly pragmatic.
About requiring passport controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? I think they'd regard it as the first stage in the deliberate reunification of Ireland by the British Government.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37602801
The issue with core Republicans is (a) they hate HRC more than Trump (generally) and (b) if HRC wins, the Supreme Court will be lost to the Republicans for a generation. I think most will grit their teeth.
I agree with weejonnie - the GOP Establishment has been looking to get rid of Trump all throughout the campaign so their calls are likely to be viewed cynically.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3829660/Diane-Abbott-opposed-proscribing-Al-Qaeda-20-terrorist-groups-shortly-September-11-terror-attacks.html
I agree with weejonnie - the GOP Establishment has been looking to get rid of Trump all throughout the campaign so their calls are likely to be viewed cynically.
if that chimed with the RNC's private polling, they would be supporting him. The ppp say there private polls have him at 70% with republicans. Thats not enough
Fantastic match.......
Am I allowed to say how you can get sport feeds live here?
Very serendipitous that you called it 3-2 to Italy 2 minutes before they scored to go 3-2 up
Trump has proven he can win despite weak on the ground organisation.
Face to face contact is the most likely thing to make someone vote, and time and again it's been proven that it does increase turnout at elections.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I remember reading a story about a guy who had Tourette's, and every time he saw a black man he couldn't stop himself saying N*****.
So he was retrained to say Nigel instead, so he didn't keep getting beat up.
* by setup I don't mean the debate being rigged, more like last time Clinton blurted out beauty queen, beauty queen, miss piggy...It was clear that was supposed to have been said in a slightly like crowbarred in way, and they were ready to go with the follow up.
Its equally possible the campaign considered it better for her not to as she'd be under pressure but thats not how its getting reported.
Meanwhile the Russians have been caught on altering source material.
I am hoping Trump goes total Alex Jones.
From a betting point of view, this is of course an important point. Rats were famously good at sensing when the ship was about to sink...
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Head of a Clinton Super PAC has said they will pay for any legal fees that come from a leak.
However, maintaining the Common Travel Area does mean accepting that there will be no visa requirement for EU/EEA nationals. (This doesn't mean people have the right to reside; Switzerland and Liechtenstein are in Schengen, which means anyone inside the zone can get there without even a passport, but it does not mean you can stay there.)
The Thatcher government, at the height of the Troubles, considered suspending the CTA. But after much agonizing, it was decided that the economic damage to Northern Ireland would be severe, and that - as it was a long and winding border, with few few natural boundaries, and plenty of opportunities to tunnel underneath - it would do little to prevent IRA terrorists from crossing back and forth at will.
Clinton 1.245
Trump 5.85
Pence 80
Ryan 170
See you all later!
The issue has always been one of economics: the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland economies around the border are extremely tightly integrated. There will be people that cross the border a dozen times a day in their ordinary business. Policing the border, checking passports, etc., would be (a) expensive, (b) almost certainly not prevent any determined evildoer, and (c) possibly stir up long-dormant Republican sentiment in the area. (Not being able to cross the border for a pint with your cousin because the crossing is now closed for the evening.)
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
People who want to enter illegally and work illegally can come here on a tourism visa and stay. Why bother going via Ireland and making your life much more complicated?