That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
Well I suppose neither do you, and judging by previous emails there will probably be some marked with a mysterious 'C'. It was also trivialising it to suggest it was just "someone Hillary knew".
Also, if Brawn does replace Ecclestone, with Todt as FIA President one imagines they'd be as close as Mosley and Ecclestone were (Todt was Ferrari team principal when Brawn was chief technical officer).
Edited extra bit: think I got the job descriptions right...
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
Lifelong GOP supporter (now voting for Hillary): "Clinton basically trotted out the socialist manifesto. But the released WikiLeaks transcripts of her paid speeches were very comforting to me."
I believe the tired and traditional PB cliche for moments like this is "heart of stone not to laugh etc"..
The voters never fail to confound ....
A "much chortling in the library moment" for me was some Jill Stein voters (Green candidate) moving to David Duke of KKK infamy ....
Quite right. If, in ten or twenty years time, we have a full-on Trump eruption here and the political establishment tries to appeal to reason, voters will be perfectly entitled to say "look what you did" and tell them to fuck right off.
If you create a culture with no shame, then you forfeit not merely the right but the ability to call out shameless behaviour.
I really don't get it; what's the justification for this?
That's quite significant information. Nate Silver rates Franklin and Marshall B+, but adjusts their results by reducing Clinton's lead by 2 points. This new poll was conducted about half after the FBI's intervention. The lead of 11 points is 2 points more than in their last poll, done from 28 Sep-2 Oct. According to 538, Clinton's national poll lead at that time was 2-3%.
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
I commented earlier on this, though I'd not seen the voting figures showing that Vaz actually mainly got Tory votes. The whips want the system to work, and MPs aren't keen to bash one of their number who hasn't been convicted of anything. Removing him from the chair of the committee seems a reasonable sanction.
Also, if Brawn does replace Ecclestone, with Todt as FIA President one imagines they'd be as close as Mosley and Ecclestone were (Todt was Ferrari team principal when Brawn was chief technical officer).
Edited extra bit: think I got the job descriptions right...
Ferrari International Assistance on the way back? I've missed it.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
I commented earlier on this, though I'd not seen the voting figures showing that Vaz actually mainly got Tory votes. The whips want the system to work, and MPs aren't keen to bash one of their number who hasn't been convicted of anything. Removing him from the chair of the committee seems a reasonable sanction.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
That's quite significant information. Nate Silver rates Franklin and Marshall B+, but adjusts their results by reducing Clinton's lead by 2 points. This new poll was conducted about half after the FBI's intervention. The lead of 11 points is 2 points more than in their last poll, done from 28 Sep-2 Oct. According to 538, Clinton's national poll lead at that time was 2-3%.
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
Quite so .... One pillar of FOP is falling away for Trump ....
I commented earlier on this, though I'd not seen the voting figures showing that Vaz actually mainly got Tory votes. The whips want the system to work, and MPs aren't keen to bash one of their number who hasn't been convicted of anything. Removing him from the chair of the committee seems a reasonable sanction.
I think it's pretty sad that they have chosen this route. It brings Parliament into disrepute in the eyes of the general public who generally don't care for the 'process' itself but want to see some integrity and backbone.
Labour of course, might have used its own influence to alter the course of events without breaking the process though.
I commented earlier on this, though I'd not seen the voting figures showing that Vaz actually mainly got Tory votes. The whips want the system to work, and MPs aren't keen to bash one of their number who hasn't been convicted of anything. Removing him from the chair of the committee seems a reasonable sanction.
I commented earlier on this, though I'd not seen the voting figures showing that Vaz actually mainly got Tory votes. The whips want the system to work, and MPs aren't keen to bash one of their number who hasn't been convicted of anything. Removing him from the chair of the committee seems a reasonable sanction.
I think it's pretty sad that they have chosen this route. It brings Parliament into disrepute in the eyes of the general public who generally don't care for the 'process' itself but want to see some integrity and backbone.
Labour of course, might have used its own influence to alter the course of events without breaking the process though.
It smells like a deal's been done - you vote for Vaz, we'll let you do X.
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context.
That sentence is worth singling out, as it is relevant to politics again and again. If you accuse the Queen, or Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else of a hideous crime, the police have to investigate it - however, briefly. If they decide you were motivated by spite, the investigation may be rapid, or they may give it low priority, as happened to me when a far-right group mischievously accused me of inciting racial hatred of Arabs (I'd made a joke about the Taliban) - the police put it aside for over a year as they were too busy to get round to dismissing it.
Being charged with something is significant. Being investigated is not.
Brawn had his own team and worked at Mercedes too, although I don't think he's fond of the Wolff.
I hope he's rather more sensible than Ecclestone. The sport's not nearing a precipice but it is driving in that direction. Sensible action would easily stop it getting near the edge.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."
Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."
Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
That's quite significant information. Nate Silver rates Franklin and Marshall B+, but adjusts their results by reducing Clinton's lead by 2 points. This new poll was conducted about half after the FBI's intervention. The lead of 11 points is 2 points more than in their last poll, done from 28 Sep-2 Oct. According to 538, Clinton's national poll lead at that time was 2-3%.
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
Quite so .... One pillar of FOP is falling away for Trump ....
Have I mentioned FOP before ? ....
Trump us now 3.2% behind nationally on average with RCP, 4% behind in Colorado and 5. 2% behind in Pennsylvania so it is actually more likely Trump wins the popular vote then the Electoral College and if he does win the Electoral College it is now Colorado which will put him over the top, not Pennsylvania. Though a poll yesterday had him just 3 points behind in the Keystone state
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
One could argue the same about Trump's Russian links, which would be equally silly.
Good news about Keith Vaz. Let private lives remain private - the gutter press visiting family tragedies on people for consensual sexual acts is not a trend any decent person ought to want to see continue.
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
Hannan is one of those chaps that presents a good front. He uses language well and makes his points aggressively.
Yet for all that, there doesn't seem to be much depth. When he himself is challenged he is very brittle. Immediately post Brexit he almost went into meltdown.
I wonder which safe seat he is gunning for. Tick took.
Yeah, brittle is a good description.
It appears that suggesting that there's a spectrum of foreignness is a step too far even for dear, old Dan as he's deleted those tweets.
Good news about Keith Vaz. Let private lives remain private - the gutter press visiting family tragedies on people for consensual sexual acts is not a trend any decent person ought to want to see continue.
Yes - the higher this sleazy man's profile the better it is for keeping Labour's polling at record lows.
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context.
That sentence is worth singling out, as it is relevant to politics again and again. If you accuse the Queen, or Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else of a hideous crime, the police have to investigate it - however, briefly. If they decide you were motivated by spite, the investigation may be rapid, or they may give it low priority, as happened to me when a far-right group mischievously accused me of inciting racial hatred of Arabs (I'd made a joke about the Taliban) - the police put it aside for over a year as they were too busy to get round to dismissing it.
Being charged with something is significant. Being investigated is not.
The court of public opinion is pretty damning when politician's genitalia are involved in secret shenanigans. I know that 'lewd' behaviour, bringing the company you work for into disrepute is sufficient reason for dismissal in a number of employers. How come our representatives are held to different, and lower standards?
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context.
That sentence is worth singling out, as it is relevant to politics again and again. If you accuse the Queen, or Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else of a hideous crime, the police have to investigate it - however, briefly. If they decide you were motivated by spite, the investigation may be rapid, or they may give it low priority, as happened to me when a far-right group mischievously accused me of inciting racial hatred of Arabs (I'd made a joke about the Taliban) - the police put it aside for over a year as they were too busy to get round to dismissing it.
Being charged with something is significant. Being investigated is not.
The court of public opinion is pretty damning when politician's genitalia are involved in secret shenanigans. I know that 'lewd' behaviour, bringing the company you work for into disrepute is sufficient reason for dismissal in a number of employers. How come our representatives are held to different, and lower standards?
That's a good point. There are several other aspects: *) The opportunity for blackmail (overplayed to my mind) *) Hypocrisy. For example, should a gay man, who is in the closet, be allowed to vote for anti-gay legislation?
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context.
That sentence is worth singling out, as it is relevant to politics again and again. If you accuse the Queen, or Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone else of a hideous crime, the police have to investigate it - however, briefly. If they decide you were motivated by spite, the investigation may be rapid, or they may give it low priority, as happened to me when a far-right group mischievously accused me of inciting racial hatred of Arabs (I'd made a joke about the Taliban) - the police put it aside for over a year as they were too busy to get round to dismissing it.
Being charged with something is significant. Being investigated is not.
The court of public opinion is pretty damning when politician's genitalia are involved in secret shenanigans. I know that 'lewd' behaviour, bringing the company you work for into disrepute is sufficient reason for dismissal in a number of employers. How come our representatives are held to different, and lower standards?
Putin's propaganda machine is live and well in the UK. From Russia Today, to the pro-Russian editorial line of the Independent and Evening Standard, to the forthcoming launch of Pravda in Scotland(!), and even some of the astro-turfers on here.
All dedicated to subverting the "Western Alliance".
That's quite significant information. Nate Silver rates Franklin and Marshall B+, but adjusts their results by reducing Clinton's lead by 2 points. This new poll was conducted about half after the FBI's intervention. The lead of 11 points is 2 points more than in their last poll, done from 28 Sep-2 Oct. According to 538, Clinton's national poll lead at that time was 2-3%.
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
Quite so .... One pillar of FOP is falling away for Trump ....
Have I mentioned FOP before ? ....
Trump us now 3.2% behind nationally on average with RCP, 4% behind in Colorado and 5. 2% behind in Pennsylvania so it is actually more likely Trump wins the popular vote then the Electoral College and if he does win the Electoral College it is now Colorado which will put him over the top, not Pennsylvania. Though a poll yesterday had him just 3 points behind in the Keystone state
I see little prospect of Colorado putting Trump at 270+. 538 have Trump 4.1 points adrift with Clinton over 77% win ratio. Early voting also indicates a solid lead for her.
The latest PA poll issued this morning had Clinton +11
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."
Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
A breach of the law would require either intent or gross negligence. Comey testified that there was insufficient evidence of intent, and said that in the circumstances no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case focused on gross negligence.
Good news about Keith Vaz. Let private lives remain private - the gutter press visiting family tragedies on people for consensual sexual acts is not a trend any decent person ought to want to see continue.
Yes - the higher this sleazy man's profile the better it is for keeping Labour's polling at record lows.
That's quite significant information. Nate Silver rates Franklin and Marshall B+, but adjusts their results by reducing Clinton's lead by 2 points. This new poll was conducted about half after the FBI's intervention. The lead of 11 points is 2 points more than in their last poll, done from 28 Sep-2 Oct. According to 538, Clinton's national poll lead at that time was 2-3%.
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
Quite so .... One pillar of FOP is falling away for Trump ....
Have I mentioned FOP before ? ....
Trump us now 3.2% behind nationally on average with RCP, 4% behind in Colorado and 5. 2% behind in Pennsylvania so it is actually more likely Trump wins the popular vote then the Electoral College and if he does win the Electoral College it is now Colorado which will put him over the top, not Pennsylvania. Though a poll yesterday had him just 3 points behind in the Keystone state
I see little prospect of Colorado putting Trump at 270+. 538 have Trump 4.1 points adrift with Clinton over 77% win ratio. Early voting also indicates a solid lead for her.
The latest PA poll issued this morning had Clinton +11
Trump was just 1% behind in Colorado yesterday, it is now more likely to win it for him than PA, half that PA poll was pre new emailgate revelations
It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.
Manufacturing PMI - 54.3m in line with expectations. A decent figure overall. Output growth still solid and employment growth also still solid. Good start to the final quarter, if the services figures are good on Thursday then we should be looking at 0.4-0.6% growth which would mean up to 2.2% growth for the year.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."
Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
A breach of the law would require either intent or gross negligence. Comey testified that there was insufficient evidence of intent, and said that in the circumstances no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case focused on gross negligence.
It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.
I think Trump will carry OH and FL, but lose the election.
Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
Lifelong GOP supporter (now voting for Hillary): "Clinton basically trotted out the socialist manifesto. But the released WikiLeaks transcripts of her paid speeches were very comforting to me."
I believe the tired and traditional PB cliche for moments like this is "heart of stone not to laugh etc"..
That the polls haven't decisively moved against Hillary after the FBI announcement perhaps just shows how low an opinion the voters already had of her....
Manufacturing PMI - 54.3m in line with expectations. A decent figure overall. Output growth still solid and employment growth also still solid. Good start to the final quarter, if the services figures are good on Thursday then we should be looking at 0.4-0.6% growth which would mean up to 2.2% growth for the year.
It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.
I think Trump will carry OH and FL, but lose the election.
It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.
FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!
There has no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP ..
Good news about Keith Vaz. Let private lives remain private - the gutter press visiting family tragedies on people for consensual sexual acts is not a trend any decent person ought to want to see continue.
Yes - the higher this sleazy man's profile the better it is for keeping Labour's polling at record lows.
You decide what's sleazy do you? Good to see the curtain-twitching tendency is alive and well on PB.
It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.
I think Trump will carry OH and FL, but lose the election.
Good news about Keith Vaz. Let private lives remain private - the gutter press visiting family tragedies on people for consensual sexual acts is not a trend any decent person ought to want to see continue.
Comments
Clinton still gets 293.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
Edited extra bit: think I got the job descriptions right...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/03/all_four_candidates_pledge_to_support_gop_nominee.html
A "much chortling in the library moment" for me was some Jill Stein voters (Green candidate) moving to David Duke of KKK infamy ....
But comparisons aside, on those figures, Pennsylvania would obviously still be out of reach for Trump.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/tory-whips-saved-vaz/#more-248352
Clinton 43.3 .. Trump 46.9
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Have I mentioned FOP before ? ....
Labour of course, might have used its own influence to alter the course of events without breaking the process though.
'As a result 159 of the 203 MPs who voted for Vaz were Tories'.
That heart of stone's getting a right old battering.
Being charged with something is significant. Being investigated is not.
Brawn had his own team and worked at Mercedes too, although I don't think he's fond of the Wolff.
I hope he's rather more sensible than Ecclestone. The sport's not nearing a precipice but it is driving in that direction. Sensible action would easily stop it getting near the edge.
Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukips-deputy-leader-paul-nuttall-5525378
It appears that suggesting that there's a spectrum of foreignness is a step too far even for dear, old Dan as he's deleted those tweets.
The decision not to just looks like one rule for ordinary people, and another for the political elite.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/trump-putin-alt-right-comintern/506015/
The viable bet map sees Clinton losing NC OH and IA taking her down to 279 with FL keeping her below or above 300.
As an aside it also shows how difficult Trump's path to 270 is.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/9eLwL
Both books destroyed - and one he hadn't finished colouring yet.
*) The opportunity for blackmail (overplayed to my mind)
*) Hypocrisy. For example, should a gay man, who is in the closet, be allowed to vote for anti-gay legislation?
All dedicated to subverting the "Western Alliance".
Scary stuff.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3892088/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-Former-Tory-deputy-premier-Michael-Heseltine-says-strangled-mother-s-pet-Alsatian-Kim.html
The Tories have a 16-point lead - one point down from our last poll. Here are the figures.
Conservatives: 43% (no change from mid October)
Labour: 27% (up 1)
Ukip: 12% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 5% (down 1)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/nov/01/guardianicm-poll-gives-tories-16-point-lead-over-labour-politics-live?page=with:block-5818520be4b01c528432ee29#block-5818520be4b01c528432ee29
The latest PA poll issued this morning had Clinton +11
Of course he didn't testify that Clinton had broken the law. Read the transcript:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
If he does win, he wins very narrowly.
The early numbers from Nevada are also putting the state away from Trump too. One by one Clinton is closing off Trump's limited routes to 270.
There has no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP ..