Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
At presidential level, yes. At a Congressional level, the GOP has won six of the eight House elections this century (by seats; five if counted by votes).
Even in 2012, the Republicans were only 1% behind the Democrats in terms of votes for the House (unopposed returns mean the real gap was probably about 0.5%).
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
That also tells you that the Republicans would have walked this election with any other candidate.
He's perfectly capable of constructing one; the question is whether he's capable of finishing it before he starts on his next one.
I read a fascinating article in The Times about his deliberate speaking style - short sentences, simple words, repeating himself, moving from one topic to another and back again.
Trump is insane and a scumbag but he is not stupid. I suspect that yesterday he may have deliberately wielded as a weapon the perception that he might drop out or that Mike Pence might. Why else did he remove Pence's schedule from his website? He talks in "The Deal" about being ready to walk away, and how powerful that can be. As a result, we had the Clinton campaign pulling their punches and wanting most of all for Trump to stay in the race, because they'd get pummelled by Pence-Carson.
When the question was asked about his boasting about sexually assaulting women, he responded by talking about ISIS, ISIS, ISIS. Clinton could easily have got in a soundbite that everyone would be talking about afterwards:
"The question was about whether you do what you boast about doing, Mr Trump - whether you grab women's 'pussies', as you call them. That's nothing to do with ISIS."
Her presentation is far too listy and insufficiently punchy. She talked about how Trump has "targeted", as well as women, "immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others".
That would be great at a student debate. But in this context it was total crap. Concentrate your forces at your enemy's weakest point. What she should have said is this:
"You MOCK disabled people, Donald. You mocked Serge Kovaleski's disability because you didn't like what he wrote. You IMITATED him on stage. And you did the same to me after I caught pneumonia and felt ill at a 911 memorial. That's not locker-room behaviour. Don't say athletes do it. You're a DISGUSTING piece of work, Donald."
But because they don't want him to drop out, she played it soft.
What could happen now is that the RNC boot him anyway. Pence will be far stronger if Trump quits supposedly of his own accord (but really because the RNC tell him) or supposedly because Pence himself pulls out, than if Clinton kicks his arse around the floor.
Much of the talk of state ballots and the inapplicability of the Republicans' rule 9 is irrelevant. There are tapes from the Apprentice and probably a lot more. The RNC could tell Trump "you're out, or you go to jail for 20 years and lose all your assets - which is it?" I suspect that either they will say that, and he will withdraw, or he will stay in and actually win. Clinton missed her chance last night.
A very good poll for the Tories - but be careful! Have ICM overadjusted following the May 2015 debacle.? The effect has certainly been to add several points to the Tory lead. Surprised we did not get a YouGov voting intentions poll last week.
So, we're basically saying to anyone - including Brits - who wants to invest in production capacity in the UK:
"We're not going to tell you what tariffs with the EU will be. We're not going to be able to tell you what tariffs with other countries will be. We're not going to be able to tell you who will be on the Most Favoured Nation list. And we're not going to be able to tell you which countries we'll have Free Trade Agreements with."
Were you a business person, would you invest in capacity in the UK, or would you choose somewhere else where you knew the answer to most of those questions?
More generally, I agree with this article that talk of a 'Hard' vs 'Soft' Brexit is unhelpful, and actually conflates a number of different issues:
This hard-or-soft framing conflates a bundle of very different questions. Will Brexit take the U.K out of the single market? Will Britain face trade barriers? Will Brexit mean strict immigration controls? Will Britain and the EU separate on acrimonious terms, ending close cooperation on issues other than trade? Will exit be disorderly and disruptive? Declaring that Brexit will be hard implies (and is usually intended to imply) that the answer to all those questions must be yes -- and that hard thus equals disastrous.
This is what is wrong with Hillary's campaign. Trump has a message that can resonate atleast superficially: A month away from the election, she still seems to have no big vision for America. She has plenty of policy ideas, sure, tweaks here and there to what we’re doing now, but she is insistent that the country is moving generally in the right direction. Also, she loves kids. That’s not a message, and neither is “Stronger Together.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-who-won-the-second-presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
I particularly enjoyed her line when 'answering' the first question last night - "America is great when we're good" or something like that. I mean yes Hillary, but what of it?
I took it instantly as 'when you agree with me and aren't deplorables'.
A wag here last night said her hardware had been upgraded - but the software needed attention. So accurate. I'm struggling to think of a politician with so little personal warmth - John Redwood in Vulcan mode?
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
At presidential level, yes. At a Congressional level, the GOP has won six of the eight House elections this century (by seats; five if counted by votes).
Even in 2012, the Republicans were only 1% behind the Democrats in terms of votes for the House (unopposed returns mean the real gap was probably about 0.5%).
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
That also tells you that the Republicans would have walked this election with any other candidate.
Certainly, another way of looking at it is that plenty of people would be prepared to vote Republican in swing States, (they also lead in the Iowa, Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire Senate races) but Trump is significantly underperforming his party's basic support.
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
At presidential level, yes. At a Congressional level, the GOP has won six of the eight House elections this century (by seats; five if counted by votes).
Even in 2012, the Republicans were only 1% behind the Democrats in terms of votes for the House (unopposed returns mean the real gap was probably about 0.5%).
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
That also tells you that the Republicans would have walked this election with any other candidate.
Maybe the problem is that the Republicans don't put up other candidates. It's a bit like saying Labour would be walking it with any other leader than Corbyn. And, Ok, that Owen guy...
The Trump Foundation has to supply audits to the NY Attorney-General by 17 October if it solicited money unlawfully in NY, which clearly it did, otherwise it wouldn't have been served with a "notice of violation".
He's perfectly capable of constructing one; the question is whether he's capable of finishing it before he starts on his next one.
I read a fascinating article in The Times about his deliberate speaking style - short sentences, simple words, repeating himself, moving from one topic to another and back again.
Trump is insane and a scumbag but he is not stupid. I suspect that yesterday he may have deliberately wielded as a weapon the perception that he might drop out or that Mike Pence might. Why else did he remove Pence's schedule from his website? He talks in "The Deal" about being ready to walk away, and how powerful that can be. As a result, we had the Clinton campaign pulling their punches and wanting most of all for Trump to stay in the race, because they'd get pummelled by Pence-Carson.
That would be great at a student debate. But in this context it was total crap. Concentrate your forces at your enemy's weakest point. What she should have said is this:
"You MOCK disabled people, Donald. You mocked Serge Kovaleski's disability because you didn't like what he wrote. You IMITATED him on stage. And you did the same to me after I caught pneumonia and felt ill at a 911 memorial. That's not locker-room behaviour. Don't say athletes do it. You're a DISGUSTING piece of work, Donald."
But because they don't want him to drop out, she played it soft.
What could happen now is that the RNC boot him anyway. Pence will be far stronger if Trump quits supposedly of his own accord (but really because the RNC tell him) or supposedly because Pence himself pulls out, than if Clinton kicks his arse around the floor.
Much of the talk of state ballots and the inapplicability of the Republicans' rule 9 is irrelevant. There are tapes from the Apprentice and probably a lot more. The RNC could tell Trump "you're out, or you go to jail for 20 years and lose all your assets - which is it?" I suspect that either they will say that, and he will withdraw, or he will stay in and actually win. Clinton missed her chance last night.
She has one last chance to put him away.
You think he will win just by staying on the ballot? I don't think so he needeed to close the poll numbers tonight, don't think he did that. Also worse is yet to come in turns of tapes.
A very good poll for the Tories - but be careful! Have ICM overadjusted following the May 2015 debacle.? The effect has certainly been to add several points to the Tory lead. Surprised we did not get a YouGov voting intentions poll last week.
They have weighted Labour up from 24% to 26%.
That is routine and relates to the particular sample. Beyond that ICM - and other pollsters - have made a number of adjustments since the 2015 election. Several commentators have suggested that they may have overdone it. Time will tell.
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Well, we will find out in Nov. If they can vote, they won't be voting Trump
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
At presidential level, yes. At a Congressional level, the GOP has won six of the eight House elections this century (by seats; five if counted by votes).
Even in 2012, the Republicans were only 1% behind the Democrats in terms of votes for the House (unopposed returns mean the real gap was probably about 0.5%).
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
That also tells you that the Republicans would have walked this election with any other candidate.
Which is why they need to get their act together for 2020. Harness the "deplorables" and don't have a crazy person as the candidate.
Trump is insane and a scumbag but he is not stupid. I suspect that yesterday he may have deliberately wielded as a weapon the perception that he might drop out or that Mike Pence might. Why else did he remove Pence's schedule from his website? He talks in "The Deal" about being ready to walk away, and how powerful that can be. As a result, we had the Clinton campaign pulling their punches and wanting most of all for Trump to stay in the race, because they'd get pummelled by Pence-Carson.
When the question was asked about his boasting about sexually assaulting women, he responded by talking about ISIS, ISIS, ISIS. Clinton could easily have got in a soundbite that everyone would be talking about afterwards:
"The question was about whether you do what you boast about doing, Mr Trump - whether you grab women's 'pussies', as you call them. That's nothing to do with ISIS."
Her presentation is far too listy and insufficiently punchy. She talked about how Trump has "targeted", as well as women, "immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others".
That would be great at a student debate. But in this context it was total crap. Concentrate your forces at your enemy's weakest point. What she should have said is this:
"You MOCK disabled people, Donald. You mocked Serge Kovaleski's disability because you didn't like what he wrote. You IMITATED him on stage. And you did the same to me after I caught pneumonia and felt ill at a 911 memorial. That's not locker-room behaviour. Don't say athletes do it. You're a DISGUSTING piece of work, Donald."
But because they don't want him to drop out, she played it soft.
What could happen now is that the RNC boot him anyway. Pence will be far stronger if Trump quits supposedly of his own accord (but really because the RNC tell him) or supposedly because Pence himself pulls out, than if Clinton kicks his arse around the floor.
Much of the talk of state ballots and the inapplicability of the Republicans' rule 9 is irrelevant. There are tapes from the Apprentice and probably a lot more. The RNC could tell Trump "you're out, or you go to jail for 20 years and lose all your assets - which is it?" I suspect that either they will say that, and he will withdraw, or he will stay in and actually win. Clinton missed her chance last night.
I'm not sure a ticket with Ben Carson would do anything on an elected level,
This is what is wrong with Hillary's campaign. Trump has a message that can resonate atleast superficially: A month away from the election, she still seems to have no big vision for America. She has plenty of policy ideas, sure, tweaks here and there to what we’re doing now, but she is insistent that the country is moving generally in the right direction. Also, she loves kids. That’s not a message, and neither is “Stronger Together.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-who-won-the-second-presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
I particularly enjoyed her line when 'answering' the first question last night - "America is great when we're good" or something like that. I mean yes Hillary, but what of it?
I think a better campaign slogan for her would be a an economy that works for everyone.
He's perfectly capable of constructing one; the question is whether he's capable of finishing it before he starts on his next one.
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
You do realise that the Senate has elections every two years, so only about a third are up for election this year. "Elections for the United States Senate will be held on November 8, 2016, with 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested in regular elections whose winners will serve six-year terms in the 115th United States Congress until January 3, 2023. All class 3 Senators are up for election; class 3 was last up for election in 2010, when Republicans won a net gain of six seats. Currently, Democrats are expected to have 10 seats up for election, and Republicans are expected to have 24 seats up for election. However, as of June 7, only 9 Democratic held seats are in contention, as the Democrats have already secured California, with the top two finishers in the California Senate jungle primary both being Democrats. Republicans, having taken control of the Senate in the 2014 election, currently hold the Senate majority with 54 seats."
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Well, we will find out in Nov. If they can vote, they won't be voting Trump
Around a fifth of Hispanic people in the US are there illegally and ineligible, rebasing the Univision viewers poll for that would make it ~87:13 assuming illegal immigrants broke 100:0 to Hillary. That's about in line with LV breakdowns of Hispanic voters, maybe slightly more favourable to Hillary.
Clinton offers the US nothing that Obama hasn't for 8 years and Obama has been useless.
Yet has amazing favourability ratings.
I will scream demographics just now. The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the last 6 attempts. This is only going to get worse for them unless they re-align.
At presidential level, yes. At a Congressional level, the GOP has won six of the eight House elections this century (by seats; five if counted by votes).
Even in 2012, the Republicans were only 1% behind the Democrats in terms of votes for the House (unopposed returns mean the real gap was probably about 0.5%).
Isn't it 'checks and balances' combined with mid-term feelings. The Congress is the booby prize.
Well, it shows that split-ticket voting isn't quite over and done with. It probably takes a real rush of enthusiasm for a new President to hand one party all three organs of government.
WRT the Senate, it seems to me that several incumbent Republicans have built up personal votes that far outweigh the support Trump is getting in their States. Compare Trump's 3% lead in Alaska with Murkowski's 33% lead, or him being roughly level-pegging in Ohio with Portman's 14% lead.
That also tells you that the Republicans would have walked this election with any other candidate.
Any other candidate except Cruz who came second in the primaries and is probably even crazier than Trump, Carson who's away with the fairies, or the speak-your-weight Jeb Bush or Kasich -- the Cameroons to Hillary's Blairism, in British terms. What it tells us is Trump could have been president if he'd not set out to insult and denigrate half the American electorate.
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Well, we will find out in Nov. If they can vote, they won't be voting Trump
Around a fifth of Hispanic people in the US are there illegally and ineligible, rebasing the Univision viewers poll for that would make it ~87:13 assuming illegal immigrants broke 100:0 to Hillary. That's about in line with LV breakdowns of Hispanic voters, maybe slightly more favourable to Hillary.
Surely the proportion of illegal immigrants who vote for anyone will be small?
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Your initial question didn't make that clear.
I'm not sure we are table o say what proportion of those numbers are eligible to vote. However I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that Trump is not flavour of the month with the Hispanic community, voters or not.
The recent scientific polling by Univision indicates Trump tanking with Clinton +30 in Florida, his best latino demographic with a 30% Cuban American community.
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Well, we will find out in Nov. If they can vote, they won't be voting Trump
Around a fifth of Hispanic people in the US are there illegally and ineligible, rebasing the Univision viewers poll for that would make it ~87:13 assuming illegal immigrants broke 100:0 to Hillary. That's about in line with LV breakdowns of Hispanic voters, maybe slightly more favourable to Hillary.
Surely the proportion of illegal immigrants who vote for anyone will be small?
What's happened with A50 court case? All seems to have gone very quiet?
Davis making statement this PM in House
Last week Jolyon Maugham posted this piece about how the GRB could potentially destroy their case by Ockham, so I think they are probably reflecting on strategy and keeping their powder dry to see what happens.
"Jolyon" is at risk of becoming a single namer like "Boris", especially as he is planning to become more of a character by living in a windmill like the Mouse in Old Amsterdam :-) .
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Your initial question didn't make that clear.
I'm not sure we are table o say what proportion of those numbers are eligible to vote. However I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that Trump is not flavour of the month with the Hispanic community, voters or not.
The recent scientific polling by Univision indicates Trump tanking with Clinton +30 in Florida, his best latino demographic with a 30% Cuban American community.
That's a huge difference from +84 with this poll. Anyway, I thought these types of polls were supposed to come with a health warning?
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Your initial question didn't make that clear.
I'm not sure we are table o say what proportion of those numbers are eligible to vote. However I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that Trump is not flavour of the month with the Hispanic community, voters or not.
The recent scientific polling by Univision indicates Trump tanking with Clinton +30 in Florida, his best latino demographic with a 30% Cuban American community.
I don't deny any of that, but a viewer poll from a Spanish language channel isn't a good guide, didn't we have rules introduced for voodoo polling after the last debate?
It's the Spanish speaking US station. Essentially the Latino demographic with over 60 outlets in the US and accordingly important in a number of swing states.
I know what Univision is, my question was how many of theor viewers are eligible to vote.
Your initial question didn't make that clear.
I'm not sure we are table o say what proportion of those numbers are eligible to vote. However I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that Trump is not flavour of the month with the Hispanic community, voters or not.
The recent scientific polling by Univision indicates Trump tanking with Clinton +30 in Florida, his best latino demographic with a 30% Cuban American community.
I don't deny any of that, but a viewer poll from a Spanish language channel isn't a good guide, didn't we have rules introduced for voodoo polling after the last debate?
My understanding is that it is a scientific poll rather than a 'voodoo poll'. My apologies if I am incorrect.
Surprised by the post-debate polling tbh, I thought Trump edged it (and definitely not a fan). Then again, that's a male perspective - perhaps women are now looking at him very differently. Regardless, he really needed a knockout blow given the current polling in the key states, and clearly didn't get it.
Surprised by the post-debate polling tbh, I thought Trump edged it (and definitely not a fan). Then again, that's a male perspective - perhaps women are now looking at him very differently. Regardless, he really needed a knockout blow given the current polling in the key states, and clearly didn't get it.
What's happened with A50 court case? All seems to have gone very quiet?
Davis making statement this PM in House
Last week Jolyon Maugham posted this piece about how the GRB could potentially destroy their case by Ockham, so I think they are probably reflecting on strategy and keeping their powder dry to see what happens.
"Jolyon" is at risk of becoming a single namer like "Boris", especially as he is planning to become more of a character by living in a windmill like the Mouse in Old Amsterdam :-) .
Comments
When the question was asked about his boasting about sexually assaulting women, he responded by talking about ISIS, ISIS, ISIS. Clinton could easily have got in a soundbite that everyone would be talking about afterwards:
"The question was about whether you do what you boast about doing, Mr Trump - whether you grab women's 'pussies', as you call them. That's nothing to do with ISIS."
Her presentation is far too listy and insufficiently punchy. She talked about how Trump has "targeted", as well as women, "immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others".
That would be great at a student debate. But in this context it was total crap. Concentrate your forces at your enemy's weakest point. What she should have said is this:
"You MOCK disabled people, Donald. You mocked Serge Kovaleski's disability because you didn't like what he wrote. You IMITATED him on stage. And you did the same to me after I caught pneumonia and felt ill at a 911 memorial. That's not locker-room behaviour. Don't say athletes do it. You're a DISGUSTING piece of work, Donald."
But because they don't want him to drop out, she played it soft.
What could happen now is that the RNC boot him anyway. Pence will be far stronger if Trump quits supposedly of his own accord (but really because the RNC tell him) or supposedly because Pence himself pulls out, than if Clinton kicks his arse around the floor.
Much of the talk of state ballots and the inapplicability of the Republicans' rule 9 is irrelevant. There are tapes from the Apprentice and probably a lot more. The RNC could tell Trump "you're out, or you go to jail for 20 years and lose all your assets - which is it?" I suspect that either they will say that, and he will withdraw, or he will stay in and actually win. Clinton missed her chance last night.
This hard-or-soft framing conflates a bundle of very different questions. Will Brexit take the U.K out of the single market? Will Britain face trade barriers? Will Brexit mean strict immigration controls? Will Britain and the EU separate on acrimonious terms, ending close cooperation on issues other than trade? Will exit be disorderly and disruptive? Declaring that Brexit will be hard implies (and is usually intended to imply) that the answer to all those questions must be yes -- and that hard thus equals disastrous.
Not so. Let's take each in turn.
A wag here last night said her hardware had been upgraded - but the software needed attention. So accurate. I'm struggling to think of a politician with so little personal warmth - John Redwood in Vulcan mode?
The RNC need to act very fast.
You think he will win just by staying on the ballot? I don't think so he needeed to close the poll numbers tonight, don't think he did that. Also worse is yet to come in turns of tapes.
"Elections for the United States Senate will be held on November 8, 2016, with 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested in regular elections whose winners will serve six-year terms in the 115th United States Congress until January 3, 2023. All class 3 Senators are up for election; class 3 was last up for election in 2010, when Republicans won a net gain of six seats. Currently, Democrats are expected to have 10 seats up for election, and Republicans are expected to have 24 seats up for election. However, as of June 7, only 9 Democratic held seats are in contention, as the Democrats have already secured California, with the top two finishers in the California Senate jungle primary both being Democrats. Republicans, having taken control of the Senate in the 2014 election, currently hold the Senate majority with 54 seats."
I'm not sure we are table o say what proportion of those numbers are eligible to vote. However I think it's a not unreasonable assumption that Trump is not flavour of the month with the Hispanic community, voters or not.
The recent scientific polling by Univision indicates Trump tanking with Clinton +30 in Florida, his best latino demographic with a 30% Cuban American community.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-true-meaning-great-repeal-act-brexit-eu-referendum-theresa-may
"Jolyon" is at risk of becoming a single namer like "Boris", especially as he is planning to become more of a character by living in a windmill like the Mouse in Old Amsterdam :-) .
Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-more-voters-say-trump-doesn-t-respect-women-after-n663296
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/the-deplorables-manning-trumps-twitter-feed-during-the-debate-have-definitely-kept-it-trump-ian/?postshare=9531476100313008&tid=ss_tw
NEW THREAD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenacher_Motorenwerk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fg7w49UnGA
More Brits definitely believe in Ghosts and UFOs than would vote Labour. https://t.co/LZwPBTo7la
Dawn Butler otherwise known as 'Acorn Brain' just called Duchess of Cambridge the Duchess of Wales. Labour has an intelligence deficit
The ICM poll isn't going down well with Guardian readers. https://t.co/WmEfLnPgRn
Always the gold standard.
Well done Mrs May!
#24moreyears