At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.
2) there are more Dems
3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.
4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.
Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillary
Rasmussen, who you seem to be pinning your statements on, state that Roment got 17% of the black vote. This completely disagrees with the national exit poll commissioned by the tv networks in 2012 that said he got 6%. The best I've seen for him is around 10%.
538 is not a great source for your material TSE. It's very one-sided and got caught out massively re. Trump's nomination and consistently under-estimated Bernie Sanders.
The reason this article may be wayward is that primaries don't touch the vast swathe of non-political people who will will vote in the real thing. They're the ones most likely to be 'shy' not your political anoraks of primary and caucus season.
Epistemological = theory of knowledge. I presume you mean psephological?
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles blockquote>
Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillary
Rasmussen, who you seem to be pinning your statements on, state that Roment got 17% of the black vote. This completely disagrees with the national exit poll commissioned by the tv networks in 2012 that said he got 6%. The best I've seen for him is around 10%.
This makes everything they say suspect.
Regardless of whether they gave Romney the exact correct percentage in 2012, Rasmussen have called elections right before eg they were one of the most accurate pollsters in 2012. In any case it is lower turnout amongst African Americans which will likely hit Hillary more relative to 2012 than Trump winning a significant percentage of the African American vote
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Nunu, in no way are partial birth abortion and saving the life of a pregnant mother in conflict. Do some reading on the subject. Clinton's is an extreme position as she sucks up to Planned Parenthood and the like.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.
Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Killing a baby to save an adult? Surely it should be the other way around!
No of course you shouldn't kill the mother so the as yet to born mother can live? How can you think that OK?
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.
I suspect the vast majority don't actual do any of those things.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
Of course she would. Start of a very slippery slope towards infanticide.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports it
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.
There are plenty of pro choice people, possibly a majority, who are appalled by partial birth abortion.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.
There's a big difference between being pro-choice and being in favour of basically murdering a baby in the womb. I'd suggest those in favour of the latter are somewhat less than 50%, and that a majority of people are horrified by the idea in a western country.
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
are you a doctor? There are several reasons why a pregnancy is going so badly that it needs the baby out to save the mother.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
I didnt poo poo it. I asked follow up questions u ignored.
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
My sense is that there's still a lot of volatility and a lot will depend on what is dominating the news cycle in the final days of the campaign.
Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in terms
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.
What do you think of the chances of Marion?
She's even more popular than Marine at the moment, and also a very charismatic politician, but I think her ideas would find a lot less support in the country at large. She's too classic FN minus the anti-semitism. Under scrutiny I think she'd lose a large proportion of the 'left behind' vote.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
No, I rember she didn't just say its only of its only if mothers life is at risk, most humane people would agree with that but I remember her saying "and unexpected illness" i.e ones the baby has, but that could be a plethora of different things.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?
Are you serious? Its not one or the other. Its both or the baby dying.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?
Are you serious? Its not one or the other. Its both or the baby dying.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
Crap.
in the debate she justified it where the mothers "health is in jeopardy"
Weasel words that are a completely different thing to her life being in jeopardy
As the enquirer points out "Furthermore, Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, so expansively defined the “mother’s health” exception in Roe — it includes “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” health, according to Doe — as to justify virtually any abortion"
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwise
This was very similar to the original arguments for allowing abortion in the UK, which has since been allowed to be interpreted as any social reason that the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother, leading to over 200,000 abortions in the UK every year.
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
No pooh-pooing but Trumps unfavoubility is much worse than Clinton. Hers is minus 10 or so his is - 30%. Also Obama favour ability number is at 57%, so that wrong direction could mean they don't like congress blocking everything we need supplementary questions on it's own it doesn't tell us much.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?
Late term abortions do take place in the UK, and can be as late as 39 weeks, but are only permitted in unusual circumstances:
I would have a lot more sympathy with banning late term abortions if it wasn't that many occur as a result of making early terminations difficult to access, particularly in the USA.
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
With all this polling of small sample sizes and less than transparent methods, I'm still not convinced that the presidential contest is over. Trump could yet pull this off.
Party booked for the night of 8th, and the following day off work! Popcorn ordered in bulk!
Did you see the part where she has to get funding from Russian banks since French ones won't lend to her. Bit of a pattern emerging with these nationalistic movements. Make the motherland great again!
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?
are you a doctor? There are several reasons why a pregnancy is going so badly that it needs the baby out to save the mother.
Indeed so I agree but the procedure is to terminate the baby inside the mother so why kill the baby?
just get it out quickly and it then it takes its chances I would have thought.
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
Hillary is rather technocratic and lacking in charisma and the human touch.
I am not bothered, having seen far too many charismatic charletans wreaking chaos over the years. Someone who thinks before she speaks is a pleasant change.
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
Dreadfully uninspiring, and I think she has health issues that will show part way through her presidency. I'd rather have Obama (M) for leader ^_~
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
If the baby was a Remain voter then we've been told on here that its life is worth more than an adult one. Especially if the mother is old.
Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
She won't do anything to address the problems that have resulted in the US throwing up first the Tea Party and now Trump, and the malaise set in earlier than that. Hilary is prototypically establishment. So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.
As other's down thread have already said the danger is that someone with mad ideas like Trump but without the daft hair and misogyny will turn up in 2020 win the election and take the US in a very bad direction. Or maybe the Democrats and Republicans could actually look at addressing some of the problems that have lead to any increasingly large section of the electorate seeking disruptive parties and candidates.
Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.
Yet you admit it on here daily?
They don't seem particularly shy, Lol. Quite the opposite, there probably are some not enough and I think there will be a shy Clinton vote as well.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?
If the baby was a Remain voter then we've been told on here that its life is worth more than an adult one. Especially if the mother is old.
So sad the way some young people were complaining they were out voted by older people forgetting they voted for it in 1975 and have seen they were lied to.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
These days whenever I come on this site I feel rather relieved that PBers aren't in government. Some of the ideas on this site are seriously frightening....
''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
It very much depends where you are in the States. The wrong track if you are a steelworker in Ohio or a car factory worker in Michigan, but if you are a software engineer in California, or geneticist in North Carolina it is a different story.
Not liking the track the country is on tells you little. We may well have 2/3 of Britons thinking that we are on the wrong track, with those being equally divided between Cobynistas and Faragists.
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Not entirely!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
La times poll is pointless.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
I don't buy that.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Not entirely!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
La times poll is pointless.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Automatic naturalisation of long term illegal immigrants without a criminal record. Probably not popular, but definitely changing things and striking.
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Not entirely!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
I don't buy that.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.
Have we? I have seen no surge in early voting by African Americans compared to 2012 and as I said Trump is winning more Democrats than Hillary is winning Republicans according to Rasmussen so party ID may not be much to go on either
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.
They would be the ones benefitting then from free tuition at State Universities and Community Colleges.
If only a British Party was wanting to implement it!
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
That is household income, so about $62,500 individual income which would still be an above average income in most states
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
La times poll is pointless.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
they were last right 8 years ago. And there are less white uneducated voters in comparision to latino voters. And im yet to be convinced that there is any evidence of less Dem voter turnout
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.
Exactly, most would easily earn less than this that's why it could be popular. Should've have lowered it and offered free grants as well.
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Not entirely!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.
They certainly do leave very public trails, Doc, but I was talking about serious intelligence generation.
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.
They would be the ones benefitting then from free tuition at State Universities and Community Colleges.
If only a British Party was wanting to implement it!
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?
Not entirely!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.
They certainly do leave very public trails, Doc, but I was talking about serious intelligence generation.
Clearly different targets require different approaches, but we were discussing gathering intelligence on politicians engaged in Brexit negotiations.
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
La times poll is pointless.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
they were last right 8 years ago. And there are less white uneducated voters in comparision to latino voters. And im yet to be convinced that there is any evidence of less Dem voter turnout
We shall see but certainly it does show Rasmussen and IBID-TIPP cannot be dismissed as always calling elections wrong
OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Automatic naturalisation of long term illegal immigrants without a criminal record. Probably not popular, but definitely changing things and striking.
amnesty is pretty popular in the US. Def more than Trumps to chuck them out.
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at
I don't buy that.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.
Have we? I have seen no surge in early voting by African Americans compared to 2012 and as I said Trump is winning more Democrats than Hillary is winning Republicans according to Rasmussen so party ID may not be much to go on either
In a little over 2 weeks we will know.
I am watching the beginning of Downfall (though will record the rest). I am reminded of Steiner's phantom divisions...
Comments
This makes everything they say suspect.
The reason this article may be wayward is that primaries don't touch the vast swathe of non-political people who will will vote in the real thing. They're the ones most likely to be 'shy' not your political anoraks of primary and caucus season.
Epistemological = theory of knowledge. I presume you mean psephological?
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
https://twitter.com/RoyChubbsBrown/status/789926784460550144
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm
The problem and danger with Trump is either that he doesn't seem able to take advice, or that his advisers are shite.
Never again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sfhc_e5P88
I'd suggest those in favour of the latter are somewhat less than 50%, and that a majority of people are horrified by the idea in a western country.
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
And again. One poll?
Bloody hell.
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/790233084348293120
in the debate she justified it where the mothers "health is in jeopardy"
Weasel words that are a completely different thing to her life being in jeopardy
As the enquirer points out "Furthermore, Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, so expansively defined the “mother’s health” exception in Roe — it includes “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” health, according to Doe — as to justify virtually any abortion"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488493/EXCLUSIVE-MP-outrage-at-39-week-abortion/amp?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb
I would have a lot more sympathy with banning late term abortions if it wasn't that many occur as a result of making early terminations difficult to access, particularly in the USA.
@michaelsavage: Remember the Great Repeal Bill, announced by May at #CPC16? Well, it is set to become a parliamentary nightmare for government... 1/3
One senior Tory wants to a "sunset clause", meaning all EU laws expire after 5yrs unless ministers have separately passed them into law. 2/3
This is just one of what will be many proposals to derail it by Remain/Leave MPs. Will it ever get passed!? See tomorrow's Times for more.
Party booked for the night of 8th, and the following day off work! Popcorn ordered in bulk!
just get it out quickly and it then it takes its chances I would have thought.
I am not bothered, having seen far too many charismatic charletans wreaking chaos over the years. Someone who thinks before she speaks is a pleasant change.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/jeremy-corbyn-discussed-shami-chakrabarti-peerage-with-advisors/
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
Because of the result, they became the Cameron resignation honours list.
Still disappointed by Dave and his resignation honours list, where was my GCMG? (and JohnO's peerage?)
As other's down thread have already said the danger is that someone with mad ideas like Trump but without the daft hair and misogyny will turn up in 2020 win the election and take the US in a very bad direction. Or maybe the Democrats and Republicans could actually look at addressing some of the problems that have lead to any increasingly large section of the electorate seeking disruptive parties and candidates.
ha ha ha ha ha ha
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
Not liking the track the country is on tells you little. We may well have 2/3 of Britons thinking that we are on the wrong track, with those being equally divided between Cobynistas and Faragists.
"Downfall" on BBC2 at 11.20 tonight!
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004/election_2004_bush_kerry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls
If only a British Party was wanting to implement it!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/23/female-labour-mps-write-to-attorney-general-over-ched-evans-case
I am watching the beginning of Downfall (though will record the rest). I am reminded of Steiner's phantom divisions...