It's disturbing to read some of the stuff Scott Adams is coming out with now: "Democrats generally use guns to commit crimes. Republican use guns for sport and for self-defense."
Is it meant to be funny, or what?
It's meant to cause a reaction that Adams can then belittle you for having as he didn't really say the thing you are accusing him of saying.
See also all his previous posts for examples.
Having looked at some more of his stuff, he does give the impression of trying to be provocative without being clear.
But I assure you he really did say the thing I put in quotation marks (unless somebody hacked into his website).
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
Miss JGP, reloading times in that era were horrendous, so you'd probably get off just the one shot then use your sword.
(snipped)
Thank you, that is fascinating. Muskets were quite large, weren't they? Did they just throw away the musket after the shot if no time to reload? It would be hard to engage in a sword fight with a musket strapped to your back, wouldn't it?
As I understand it, musketry involved using several rows of soldiers so that as one row fired those behind were finishing loading and the third r.ow preparing to load. The second row then fired over the first, and so on. Ny the time the third row had fired the first row had finished reloading and were ready to fire.
You list your demands. What you do not do is list your fallback position.
In a rational negotiation, perhaps, but only at an appropriate time of your choosing.
A list of demands submitted into an intensely political and irrational negotiation, months ahead of time, is borderline suicidal. Unfortunately for all concerned "intensely political and irrational" will characterise the brexit talks from start to finish.
It doesn't work like a poker game because politics is about buying off interests. Theresa May talks tough on Brexit, not to gain negotiating power, but to pander to her party interest groups. May's supposed Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is Hard Brexit and isn't a Best Alternative at all. The EU's BATNA is a Hard Brexit that doesn't damage their own special interests too much. I don't think the EU side is inherently more sensible than our lot, but they are sitting pretty on this negotiation, while May deals with the contradictions of her negotiating positions.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
It's a question that needs answering, can the business be carried out with a brass plate on a server or does that bank physically need staff in an office.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I have to say any banker looking to set up in a separatist region needs to get their head examined.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
Tax authorities are increasingly looking to physical presence and effective decision making as a test for gaining tax advantages with a given jurisdiction (there is more coming on this from the OECD shortly). In effect the real company test. Otherwise there's a real risk that it will be seen as a fronting entity which is an increasingly unhappy place to be.
Miss JGP, reloading times in that era were horrendous, so you'd probably get off just the one shot then use your sword.
(snipped)
Thank you, that is fascinating. Muskets were quite large, weren't they? Did they just throw away the musket after the shot if no time to reload? It would be hard to engage in a sword fight with a musket strapped to your back, wouldn't it?
As I understand it, musketry involved using several rows of soldiers so that as one row fired those behind were finishing loading and the third r.ow preparing to load. The second row then fired over the first, and so on. Ny the time the third row had fired the first row had finished reloading and were ready to fire.
I think at the period in question, musketeers were protected by pikemen in a defensive manner. Lines of infantry firing as you describe came later. Early muskets were heavy and unweieldy as well as being slow to load, so not so useful for offensive operations.
Rather as Dragoons rarely fought as mounted infantry, and Fusileers rarely lobbed grenades, or indeed modern paratroops rarely use parachutes, musketeers became an elite unit to protect the King in battle. Certainly that is how they seem to function in the story.
Miss JGP, reloading times in that era were horrendous, so you'd probably get off just the one shot then use your sword.
(snipped)
Thank you, that is fascinating. Muskets were quite large, weren't they? Did they just throw away the musket after the shot if no time to reload? It would be hard to engage in a sword fight with a musket strapped to your back, wouldn't it?</blockquote The bayonet
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I have to say any banker looking to set up in a separatist region needs to get their head examined.
Brexit is separatism.
Which is why any banks that considers moving won't go to a separatist region. If you're leaving London to go back into the EU then investing money in a place that might also leave the EU is the height of stupidity.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
Cyclefree can answer that one: essentially regulators want responsible people to be where they can be arrested talked to. Someone needs to be in country to be the one who's fingered.
Big news of the day seems to be an episode of Poldark apparently.
It was quite shocking. Not only was the great hero, Ross Poldark, unfaithful to the lovely Demelza, he possibly did it with a rape, or something close.
I'd call that brave scriptwriting. Or suicidal. Next Sunday's viewing figures will reveal....
My (admittedly fuzzy) recollection from the original series what that it was in a 'droit de seigneur' context. Was that the case this time too?
Of course, that sort of thing is unacceptable now, but I am not sure I agree that actors should re-write either history or historical fiction (or indeed art) just to conform with today's mores. Part of knowing who we are (and the progress we have made as a society) is knowing what we were.
Rape is enormously popular in historical romantic fiction.
Because, of course, a lot of women fantasize about forced and submissive sex endlessly, though the Guardianista feminists would deny this til they die. The handsome dominant man who roughly takes what he wants, from the faintly resisting but secretly excited woman, is a huge turn-on.
Fifty Shades of Grey sold 100m copies. ONE HUNDRED MILLION.
Not read it, but isn't the central point about 50 Shades of Grey that it's entirely consensual?
No. Famously the line is blurred several times. And blurring is being generous to Mr Gray.
Fair enough. As any normal man would do, I refused my wife permission to buy the book when she requested it.
Do you consider that it is just possible that the First Minister has thought about these things more deeply than you pair.
It is obvious that she has more of a worked out plan than the Prime Minister.
How does a 'worked out plan' prioritise 15% of Scotland's trade over 60% of it?
How does a 'worked out plan' pay for moving from a Union that puts money into Scotland, to one that will take money out of Scotland?
Do tell......
When has teh union ever put money into Scotland, it borrows money and makes Scotland pay all the interest. Get a grip do you think we would be daft enough to be borrowing 100 Billion if independent , wasting money on London and south east infrastructure , London airports , HS2 , pathetic nucleur submarines , aircraft carriers , and on and on and on.
You list your demands. What you do not do is list your fallback position.
In a rational negotiation, perhaps, but only at an appropriate time of your choosing.
A list of demands submitted into an intensely political and irrational negotiation, months ahead of time, is borderline suicidal. Unfortunately for all concerned "intensely political and irrational" will characterise the brexit talks from start to finish.
It doesn't work like a poker game because politics is about buying off interests. Theresa May talks tough on Brexit, not to gain negotiating power, but to pander to her party interest groups. May's supposed Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is Hard Brexit and isn't a Best Alternative at all. The EU's BATNA is a Hard Brexit that doesn't damage their own special interests too much. I don't think the EU side is inherently more sensible than our lot, but they are sitting pretty on this negotiation, while May deals with the contradictions of her negotiating positions.
That is an excellent description of why the EU hold the advantage, and when the A5O is triggered even more so. Hence the sloth in acting while May waits for her Baldricks to come up with a cunning plan. She cannot wait indefinitely though, and as someone said the other day, looks increasingly like a sphinx without a riddle.
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
You really will have to stay consistent with the Brexiteer world.
England is Scotland's largest export market but Scotland is England's fourth largest and two of the others are Germany and France!
England is also one of the very countries with which Scotland runs a trade deficit. On the Brexiteer logic then it would be irrational for England to wish for anything other than an open border with its fourth largest trade partner with whom it runs a trade surplus!
Of course if you take the view than the rest of the planet is transfixed by the greatness of Britannia then you will come to believe than anything is sensible!
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
Cyclefree can answer that one: essentially regulators want responsible people to be where they can be arrested talked to. Someone needs to be in country to be the one who's fingered.
In a world of growing fintech, does the concept of people needing to be in a country seem rather strange?
You really will have to stay consistent with the Brexiteer world.
England is Scotland's largest export market but Scotland is England's fourth largest and two of the others are Germany and France!
England is also one of the very countries with which Scotland runs a trade deficit. On the Brexiteer logic then it would be irrational for England to wish for anything other than an open border with its fourth largest trade partner with whom it runs a trade surplus!
Of course if you take the view than the rest of the planet is transfixed by the greatness of Britannia then you will come to believe than anything is sensible!
You really will have to stay consistent with the Brexiteer world.
England is Scotland's largest export market but Scotland is England's fourth largest and two of the others are Germany and France!
England is also one of the very countries with which Scotland runs a trade deficit. On the Brexiteer logic then it would be irrational for England to wish for anything other than an open border with its fourth largest trade partner with whom it runs a trade surplus!
Of course if you take the view than the rest of the planet is transfixed by the greatness of Britannia then you will come to believe than anything is sensible!
Answer the question. Why prioritise 15% of your trade over 60%? Why move from receiving funds to sending them? You said Sturgeon had a plan- what is it?
If GA goes Clinton, then the future of Trumpism looks bleak. How can the Republicans find a way back?
Obama came with 5 points in 08. However although demographics are trending blue I doubt the state will go for Clinton. In these last two weeks if Clinton or a top surrogate visits the state it will certainly give a cheek of ARSE a slight twitch ..
''If GA goes Clinton, then the future of Trumpism looks bleak. How can the Republicans find a way back?''
They can't. If Trump loses Hillary will freshly stock the Democrat base with millions of extra immmigrant voters over the next four years.
The Repubs could choose a centrist liberal Republican and still lose. In fact, they could go down to an even bigger defeat, because the Trump supporters will desert.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I have to say any banker looking to set up in a separatist region needs to get their head examined.
Brexit is separatism.
Which is why any banks that considers moving won't go to a separatist region. If you're leaving London to go back into the EU then investing money in a place that might also leave the EU is the height of stupidity.
Hits nail on the head. Rather screws up Scotland with its will they, won't they antics.
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Which raises the interesting question, which of May, Merkel, Hollande & Renzi will be in place a year from now.....possibly only one of the above......
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Which raises the interesting question, which of May, Merkel, Hollande & Renzi will be in place a year from now.....possibly only one of the above......
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Which raises the interesting question, which of May, Merkel, Hollande & Renzi will be in place a year from now.....possibly only one of the above......
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Which raises the interesting question, which of May, Merkel, Hollande & Renzi will be in place a year from now.....possibly only one of the above......
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
Not a surprising statement. Have been watching the polls on this topic, albeit not avidly, for the past few weeks. They've mostly been very close, with more leaning to No than Yes, IIRC.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Renzi has said he will resign if he loses, and I'm sure that's correct.
*But* that does not mean there will be an election. It means that the Italian President will ask the Democratic Party if there's another person who can command the confidence of the Lower and Upper Houses of the Italian parliament. The DP will say "Yes", and - just as in the UK - someone else will take over.
There is a certain humour in all of this. The biggest beneficiaries of the constitutional change would be The Five Star Movement. But they are the people campaigning against it (for the tactical reason that any defeat of the DP is worth going for.)
How can she be 4% ahead in Georgia but only 5% ahead in Virginia? Doesn't sound right.
Say the true picture is Clinton+7 nationally, that would imply around something like GA -2, VA +9. Not inconsistent with these state polls given the sample size.
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
''Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.''
'And people on here tell me that American elections aren't identity elections. LOL.
''Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.''
'And people on here tell me that American elections aren't identity elections. LOL.
''Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.''
'And people on here tell me that American elections aren't identity elections. LOL.
its not identity politics for a minority to refuse to vote for an openly racist candidate like Trump. If the republicans want to get hisoabic votes, they need to stop being racist
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Sturgeon has been as clear as May has been opaque.
She has interpreted her mandate from the European referendum to 1) keep Scotland in the single market 2) protect the civil rights of European citizens in Scotland and 3) to protect the social and employment rights of Scots.
She will discharge this by a) combining with others to prevent a hard Brexit b) propose a specific deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland and c) hold an independence referendum if a) and b) are refused. The last of these is supported by a specific mandate from the Scottish elections in May.
Incidentally her point on b) was supported at the weekend by an editorial in the Financial Times and an Op Ed in the Irish Times.
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Sturgeon has been as clear as May has been opaque.
She has interpreted her mandate from the European referendum to 1) keep Scotland in the single market 2) protect the civil rights of European citizens in Scotland and 3) to protect the social and employment rights of Scots.
She will discharge this by a) combining with others to prevent a hard Brexit b) propose a specific deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland and c) hold an independence referendum if a) and b) are refused. The last of these is supported by a specific mandate from the Scottish elections in May.
Incidentally her point on b) was supported at the weekend by an editorial in the Financial Times and an Op Ed in the Irish Times.
two newspapers which have called just about everything on Brexit wrong
How can she be 4% ahead in Georgia but only 5% ahead in Virginia? Doesn't sound right.
Say the true picture is Clinton+7 nationally, that would imply around something like GA -2, VA +9. Not inconsistent with these state polls given the sample size.
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Well a Louisiana poll showed her on 20% with white voters, if that is similar outside of Atlanta suburbs she has no chance.
Sturgeon has been as clear as May has been opaque.
She has interpreted her mandate from the European referendum to 1) keep Scotland in the single market 2) protect the civil rights of European citizens in Scotland and 3) to protect the social and employment rights of Scots.
She will discharge this by a) combining with others to prevent a hard Brexit b) propose a specific deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland and c) hold an independence referendum if a) and b) are refused. The last of these is supported by a specific mandate from the Scottish elections in May.
Incidentally her point on b) was supported at the weekend by an editorial in the Financial Times and an Op Ed in the Irish Times.
And answer came there none.
If the risk to Scotland is to its trade - why prioritise 15% of that trade over 60%?
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I have to say any banker looking to set up in a separatist region needs to get their head examined.
Yes, every potential EU rival to London has major problems (on top of lacking the ecosystem and financial infrastructure)
Dublin: provincial, rainy Paris: speak French, anti-business laws, security issues Frankfurt: boring, speak German Luxembourg: incredibly boring Amsterdam: small town, too many canals, smells of herring
As others have written it's possible that if Hard Brexit is a disaster for the City, a lot of the business will go to NYC or Hong Kong/Singapore, and/or simply disappear altogether
I think that you do need to allow for the fact that the top echelons are often not British. French bankers may well like Paris or Geneva, German ones may like Frankfurt etc. It is the British commuters who are less linguistically skilled and more easily replaced.
In reality the main thing preventing a mass exodus from London is inertia, and the need for office space and infrastructure in their new site. It is far more likely that there will be a rundown by natural wastage and gradual job transfers rather than a mass movement.
My cousin who works in artificial intelligence for automated trading moved to the Continent this summer and seems quite happy, but I think the move was planned pre-Brexit.
Fair point. Tho I still think most will prefer London. The city has been structured so as to service these people, in essence.
I agree that if London declines it will come from natural wastage as firms shift FUTURE investments into the EU. But that presumes London doesn't come back fighting: with aggressive tax breaks, specially flexible regulations, etc.
Given London's history, that will be exactly what London does. It is in the city's DNA. Remember what Canary Wharf was, 40 years ago. The city has incredible powers of revival. I wouldn't write off The Smoke, just yet.
At this point, perhaps we should be thinking in terms of making the UK more attractive to artificial intelligences. We do have the Lucasian Chair to offer ...
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
noooo. Its about WWC with no college degree vs women, hispanics, college educated whites, african american and the young.
Interestingly, that politico story downthead echoes the views I heard from that ultra-rich birthday party I went to. The Brexiteering financiers and billionaires reckoned the banks were bluffing: "no one wants to live in Frankfurt, or even Paris. Most will stay."
Hmm.
The banker I talked to suggested his firm was looking at setting up in Barcelona, as one of the few sensible places where a London financier would happily relocate to.
I'm sure some will go but if we are nimble in our flexible, post-EU future, we will be able to attract others. e.g. official euro clearing will surely shift to the EU (tho this was likely long term, anyway); at the same time we will be able to strike down some of the anti-biz EU laws (bonuses anyone?) making London more alluring.
They won't go to Barcelona. Dublin is the most likely candidate.
If this business went to Dublin, I reckon most London bankers would find a way to commute.
Genuine question...
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
Sturgeon has been as clear as May has been opaque.
She has interpreted her mandate from the European referendum to 1) keep Scotland in the single market 2) protect the civil rights of European citizens in Scotland and 3) to protect the social and employment rights of Scots.
She will discharge this by a) combining with others to prevent a hard Brexit b) propose a specific deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland and c) hold an independence referendum if a) and b) are refused. The last of these is supported by a specific mandate from the Scottish elections in May.
Incidentally her point on b) was supported at the weekend by an editorial in the Financial Times and an Op Ed in the Irish Times.
And answer came there none.
If the risk to Scotland is to its trade - why prioritise 15% of that trade over 60%?
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Regardless of the import of intermediates, Brexiers think that the UK is the only country allowed to act with its heart over its head. Whilst we have accepted that we will be paying some kind of price for Brexit, our negotiating position is likely to be predicated upon the idea that the EU will choose to pay no kind of price whatsoever.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
''Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.''
'And people on here tell me that American elections aren't identity elections. LOL.
its not identity politics for a minority to refuse to vote for an openly racist candidate like Trump. If the republicans want to get hisoabic votes, they need to stop being racist
And in any case who started it? Perhaps Nixon with his southern strategy.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Regardless of the import of intermediates, Brexiers think that the UK is the only country allowed to act with its heart over its head. Whilst we have accepted that we will be paying some kind of price for Brexit, our negotiating position is likely to be predicated upon the idea that the EU will choose to pay no kind of price whatsoever.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
I don't think the EU27 believe that there will be very much economic damage for the EU from Brexit. A lot of things that Britain gets from Europe we can't get from anywhere else - in the short term at least, whilst there aren't that many things they rely on sourcing from the UK. And even if these things aren't 100% true, politically they might as well be, as far as the EU27 are concerned. And the transition will be relatively cheap and painless for them - they're used to dealing with non-EU countries.
But the short-term economic damage to the UK will be considerable, not least from the costs of converting to dealing with every other country on a new footing.
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Regardless of the import of intermediates, Brexiers think that the UK is the only country allowed to act with its heart over its head. Whilst we have accepted that we will be paying some kind of price for Brexit, our negotiating position is likely to be predicated upon the idea that the EU will choose to pay no kind of price whatsoever.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
I don't think the EU27 believe that there will be very much economic damage for the EU from Brexit. A lot of things that Britain gets from Europe we can't get from anywhere else - in the short term at least, whilst there aren't that many things they rely on sourcing from the UK. And even if these things aren't 100% true, politically they might as well be, as far as the EU27 are concerned. And the transition will be relatively cheap and painless for them - they're used to dealing with non-EU countries.
But the short-term economic damage to the UK will be considerable, not least from the costs of converting to dealing with every other country on a new footing.
err what critical items will we struggle to get from elsewhere ?
My home server, a ancient and venerable Mac Mini, has given up the ghost. The hard drive is making horrible noises and it isn't booting up
Has the magic smoke come out of it yet?
(For the non-techies out there, electronics is manufactured by wizards and witches, whose magic invocations gives the electronics its power. When it goes wrong, the magic emerges as a smoke with a very distinctive smell. Well, it's either escaping magic or a capacitor's blown).
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Regardless of the import of intermediates, Brexiers think that the UK is the only country allowed to act with its heart over its head. Whilst we have accepted that we will be paying some kind of price for Brexit, our negotiating position is likely to be predicated upon the idea that the EU will choose to pay no kind of price whatsoever.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
I don't think the EU27 believe that there will be very much economic damage for the EU from Brexit. A lot of things that Britain gets from Europe we can't get from anywhere else - in the short term at least, whilst there aren't that many things they rely on sourcing from the UK. And even if these things aren't 100% true, politically they might as well be, as far as the EU27 are concerned. And the transition will be relatively cheap and painless for them - they're used to dealing with non-EU countries.
But the short-term economic damage to the UK will be considerable, not least from the costs of converting to dealing with every other country on a new footing.
I deal with non EU customers every day. Not an issue.
Downing Street says the PM is set to rebuff calls for a flexible Brexit, which would allow parts of the UK to have their own arrangement,’ said the BBC radio news this morning. Not quite. This notion has been rejected in Europe, where the idea of doing some kind of separate deal with Scotland or any constituent part of the UK was never a deal. The ‘options’ that the SNP talk about do not exist as far as the EU is concerned: it is a giant bluff. It’s far from clear why she is asking Theresa May for something that the EU has already rejected
How can she be 4% ahead in Georgia but only 5% ahead in Virginia? Doesn't sound right.
Say the true picture is Clinton+7 nationally, that would imply around something like GA -2, VA +9. Not inconsistent with these state polls given the sample size.
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Well a Louisiana poll showed her on 20% with white voters, if that is similar outside of Atlanta suburbs she has no chance.
Louisiana is quite different to GA, and both are different to the Rustbelt. LA is the Old South, while GA is the New South.
The South is not shedding jobs in steel and cars like the Rustbelt, and is doing well in the growing industries. It is not the fertile place for Trumpism that Ohio or Indiana are.
I think Trump will overperform in trans-Appalachia, but do worse than recent Republicans in the South.
"Germany, not surprisingly, would be the biggest net loser: its exporters would pay £3.4 billion in tariffs, compared with the £0.9 billion worth of tariffs paid by UK exporters selling to Germany. France, too, would be a big loser, not least due to the higher tariffs allowed for agricultural goods under MFN rules. French exporters to the UK would pay £1.4 billion in tariffs, compared with £700 million paid by UK exporters to France."
Well one company I know currently imports stuff to UK, processes it and sells it across EU with a very considerable margin. It can easily switch manufacturing to continent. If it does so the UK will get nice high tariffs on the small proportion that is sold in the UK. But the UK loses out overall - especially the workers.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Regardless of the import of intermediates, Brexiers think that the UK is the only country allowed to act with its heart over its head. Whilst we have accepted that we will be paying some kind of price for Brexit, our negotiating position is likely to be predicated upon the idea that the EU will choose to pay no kind of price whatsoever.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
I don't think the EU27 believe that there will be very much economic damage for the EU from Brexit. A lot of things that Britain gets from Europe we can't get from anywhere else - in the short term at least, whilst there aren't that many things they rely on sourcing from the UK. And even if these things aren't 100% true, politically they might as well be, as far as the EU27 are concerned. And the transition will be relatively cheap and painless for them - they're used to dealing with non-EU countries.
But the short-term economic damage to the UK will be considerable, not least from the costs of converting to dealing with every other country on a new footing.
err what critical items will we struggle to get from elsewhere ?
Of course Airbus won't have any difficulty sourcing wings or engines from outside the UK.....
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
Nah Bush vs. Michelle. Dems in control for another 8 years.
Kaine will be Dem nominee in 2024 almost certainly as VP, he will still only be 66. Michelle has not even been elected to office and I think even Americans may baulk at the wife of a former president succeeding a wife of a former president, the grandson and nephew of a president is not quite as bad. George P Bush is half Mexican and shares more of his father's policies than his uncle's while more of the latter's charisma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4ayKHP0C4
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
he is really down in the last 3 states you mentioned and isnt retaining the romney states.
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
noooo. Its about WWC with no college degree vs women, hispanics, college educated whites, african american and the young.
Trumps one demo is outnumbered.
It is all relative to 2012, WWC more enthusiastic about Trump than Romney, women more enthusiastic for Hillary than Obama, men dislike Hillary more than Obama, Hispanics dislike Trump as much as Romney, college educated whites preferred Romney to Trump and may vote Hillary, African Americans and the young are much less enthusiastic about Hillary than Obama. It all depends on who turns out and where
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
Don't buy it myself. Trump is so utterly defeated. This will be a historic landslide. This is not Brexit. But I guess we'll know in two weeks.
Hispanics certainly are going to build a wall for Donald Trump. It's a wall against his ambition to be President.
Does that mean almost double or 100x?
Hispanic registration has been driven by related issues - Historic GOP anti-immigration policies, the rise of Trump, the growth of Spanish speaking media and extensive out-reach by the Democrats.
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and may run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
noooo. Its about WWC with no college degree vs women, hispanics, college educated whites, african american and the young.
Trumps one demo is outnumbered.
It is all relative to 2012, WWC more enthusiastic about Trump than Romney, women more enthusiastic for Hillary than Obama, men dislike Hillary more than Obama, Hispanics dislike Trump as much as Romney, college educated whites preferred Romney to Trump and may vote Hillary, African Americans and the young are much less enthusiastic about Hillary than Obama. It all depends on who turns out and where
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
You really are living in Trump La-La-Land ....
If Trump was competitive in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he'd be stuffing those states with Trump rallies, surrogates, field offices and cash .... and yet ....
All the substantive polling of Hispanic only voters show Trump polling around 15% compared to Romney's 27%.
Trump is opting for the narrow window of Romney 12 and FOP and he's tanking.
If WWC were so hugely enthused by Trump why are we not seeing the numbers in early voting. Where is the huge spike as they flock to the polls for Donald ?!?
Trump could lose all those states except maybe Arizona and Texas and still win if he sweeps the Upper Mid West and Rustbelt and the border states. He remains competitive in Florida and Nevada though and in the former many Latinos are Cubans and like his anti Castro stance. This election is increasingly about white working class turnout versus Hispanic and there are still significantly more of the former than the latter. If Trump loses though as I have said before I think the next GOP President will be the half Hispanic George P Bush, son of Jeb, who will beat Kaine in 2024. He is already Texas Land Commissioner and May run for Governor or the Senate in 2018
So essentially if Trump runs the table, pulls a royal flush and gets six numbers up on lotto, then he wins .... who knew ?!?
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
If Trump wins Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he wins and holds the Romney states he wins 285 to 251 for Hillary even if Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida and Virginia yes. Even if Hillary won North Carolina too Trump would still win 270 to 266 if he swept the Midwest and Rustbelt. http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
Don't buy it myself. Trump is so utterly defeated. This will be a historic landslide. This is not Brexit. But I guess we'll know in two weeks.
I don't think it will be a landslide (usually meaning a lead of 10%+). But a clear win for Clinton seems likely.
Comments
But I assure you he really did say the thing I put in quotation marks (unless somebody hacked into his website).
In 2016 why does the banker need to be physically in the bank? Open an office for the bank in Lux etc, stay in London.
https://twitter.com/nickgourevitch/status/790514518719860736
Rather as Dragoons rarely fought as mounted infantry, and Fusileers rarely lobbed grenades, or indeed modern paratroops rarely use parachutes, musketeers became an elite unit to protect the King in battle. Certainly that is how they seem to function in the story.
https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/790598952617963520
9m
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn
Monmouth has a strong poll for Republicans in NC: Clinton+1, Burr+6, McCroy+1 https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NC_102416/
FL - Clinton 45 .. Trump 39
NC - Clinton 42 .. Trump 41
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 40
VA - Clinton 43 .. Trump 38
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Florida-Battleground-Results.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/North-Carolina-Battleground-Results.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Georgia-Battleground-Results.pdf
http://luc.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Georgia-Battleground-Results.pdf
Clinton 47 .. Trump 46
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_NC_102416/
If GA goes Clinton, then the future of Trumpism looks bleak. How can the Republicans find a way back?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
After many months of predicting a "yes" vote at Italy's constitutional referendum on December 4th, we are revising our central scenario.
Our baseline forecast is now that a "no" vote is narrowly the most likely outcome (55% probability), although we still believe there is a strong chance that the reform could be confirmed (45% probability).
This change in our forecast is based on several factors, including trends in opinion polling; the government's communications campaign; developments in partisan politics; and the economy's lacklustre performance.
As we explain in our October country report, we believe that a rejection of the reform will have negative implications for political stability and Italy's economic outlook.
It is also likely to force the resignation of Matteo Renzi, the prime minister, and the formation of a caretaker government.
http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=784740462&Country=Italy&topic=Politics&subtopic=Forecast&subsubtopic=Political+stability
You really will have to stay consistent with the Brexiteer world.
England is Scotland's largest export market but Scotland is England's fourth largest and two of the others are Germany and France!
England is also one of the very countries with which Scotland runs a trade deficit. On the Brexiteer logic then it would be irrational for England to wish for anything other than an open border with its fourth largest trade partner with whom it runs a trade surplus!
Of course if you take the view than the rest of the planet is transfixed by the greatness of Britannia then you will come to believe than anything is sensible!
Why prioritise 15% of your trade over 60%?
Why move from receiving funds to sending them?
You said Sturgeon had a plan- what is it?
They can't. If Trump loses Hillary will freshly stock the Democrat base with millions of extra immmigrant voters over the next four years.
The Repubs could choose a centrist liberal Republican and still lose. In fact, they could go down to an even bigger defeat, because the Trump supporters will desert.
Expenses:
£1800 boiler
£1014 bed
£1828 bathroom fitting
I'm not sure I believe it tbh.
Consensus seems to be that Renzi is finished if he loses, and there will presumably have to be a General Election in the New Year.
Clinton 49.3 .. Trump 42.3
http://web.centre.edu/benjamin.knoll/2016FCSStopline.pdf
Clinton has a 7 point lead in Kentucky?!!!
KENTUCKY?
Nope. National.
No-one wants to go to Paris. Apart from TSE.
*But* that does not mean there will be an election. It means that the Italian President will ask the Democratic Party if there's another person who can command the confidence of the Lower and Upper Houses of the Italian parliament. The DP will say "Yes", and - just as in the UK - someone else will take over.
There is a certain humour in all of this. The biggest beneficiaries of the constitutional change would be The Five Star Movement. But they are the people campaigning against it (for the tactical reason that any defeat of the DP is worth going for.)
I'm still dubious Clinton can take Georgia tbh, although hopeful (since it'd give my Texas longshot bet a chance!).
Bush would not have won the White House twice without them and within a few short years they have lost a critical demographic that will severely handicap their ability to win POTUS in the near future.
As New Mexico went, so has Nevada, Colorado and Florida and likely in 12 will Arizona. Medium term Texas will become a swing state too.
'80s Pop Icon Pete Burns Dies'
http://tinyurl.com/j6rjmak
'And people on here tell me that American elections aren't identity elections. LOL.
You really haven't been keeping up have you.
Sturgeon has been as clear as May has been opaque.
She has interpreted her mandate from the European referendum to 1) keep Scotland in the single market 2) protect the civil rights of European citizens in Scotland and 3) to protect the social and employment rights of Scots.
She will discharge this by a) combining with others to prevent a hard Brexit b) propose a specific deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland and c) hold an independence referendum if a) and b) are refused. The last of these is supported by a specific mandate from the Scottish elections in May.
Incidentally her point on b) was supported at the weekend by an editorial in the Financial Times and an Op Ed in the Irish Times.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
If the risk to Scotland is to its trade - why prioritise 15% of that trade over 60%?
Trumps one demo is outnumbered.
Now, if I was the head of one of the EU27 I would seek to minimise economic damage, but it's not something that should be counted upon when set against the undoubted enthusiasm of key EU players to keep the EU project on track. At, ahem, any price.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/republican-lead-two-early-voting-states-will-be-tested-n671396
Florida is well within MoE compared to 2012 - but NC looks good for the Democrats.
Cubans now make up only 30% of Floridan Hispanics and the younger demographic of the former are trending Democrat.
A spike in WWC for Trump will add at most 1.5 points to Trump. Not nearly enough to outweigh the combined women, college educated white and Hispanic increase.
But the short-term economic damage to the UK will be considerable, not least from the costs of converting to dealing with every other country on a new footing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37747995
(For the non-techies out there, electronics is manufactured by wizards and witches, whose magic invocations gives the electronics its power. When it goes wrong, the magic emerges as a smoke with a very distinctive smell. Well, it's either escaping magic or a capacitor's blown).
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_smoke
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/sturgeons-secessionist-fantasy-rejected-europe-ask-theresa-may/
The South is not shedding jobs in steel and cars like the Rustbelt, and is doing well in the growing industries. It is not the fertile place for Trumpism that Ohio or Indiana are.
I think Trump will overperform in trans-Appalachia, but do worse than recent Republicans in the South.
https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/790523251084627968
One for iSam, if he's lurking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37750115
http://www.270towin.com/
As Brexit proved many white working class voters who have never voted before came out to vote for a platform very similar to Trump and with African American turnout down with no Obama to vote for the Midwest and Pennsylvania could well be Trump's strongest region. Though as I said I would not rule out Trump winning in Florida or Nevada either, 30% of the Hispanic vote is still a fair proportion of potential Trump voters in Florida and Nevada also has a significant Trump presence of hotels, he is a big employer there. Of course the odds still favour Hillary but in my view it is a mistake to completely rule out Trump
http://thehill.com/latino/302444-election-day-holds-high-stakes-for-hispanics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4ayKHP0C4
If Trump was competitive in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin he'd be stuffing those states with Trump rallies, surrogates, field offices and cash .... and yet ....
All the substantive polling of Hispanic only voters show Trump polling around 15% compared to Romney's 27%.
Trump is opting for the narrow window of Romney 12 and FOP and he's tanking.
If WWC were so hugely enthused by Trump why are we not seeing the numbers in early voting. Where is the huge spike as they flock to the polls for Donald ?!?