Certainly has been curious the amount of ad money and big dog visits (Biden, Clintons, Obamas) they've used on Ohio recently - seemed to be suggesting they were always pretty confident it was closer than the public polling.
Huge swing to T R U M P in the first New Hampshire declarations !
Millsfield reported Trump 16 and Hillary 4. Dixville reported Hillary 4 and Trump 2. Hart's reported Clinton 17 and Trump 14. So overall it's Trump 32 and Hillary 25.
In 2012, these three little townships voted Obama 28/14, so T R U M P is doing really well with a huge swing to him so far !
A closer look at the voting shows that Trump did well in Dixville but awfully badly in Notch.
The Notch is turning into a ghost town though.... Maybe no-one wants to live in the glare of the world's spotlight once every four years.
Teensy little villages out in the boonies all over the world are turning into ghost towns. It's better to live near other people.
Nothing better than I could imagine not living near anyone else.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Whoops - Times forced to issue printed apology after accusing Sajid Javid of saying that judges in the Brexit case were seeking to frustrate democracy.
He was actually referring to those who brought the case
Amazing that Peston gets fatty Patty on his show to castigate Javid but Peston and his team were incapable of researching the actual words used. One might suspect Peston of leaning towards his BFF Roland Rudd?
''Take the rust belt and begin making inroads in NE states for 2024. Eventually I think the GOP will be the party of whites and the Dems everyone else. It is the natural consequence of identity politics. ''
I agree. And how profoundly depressing is that?
Or, GOP elite will devise new rules that stop a Trump-type running next time and find a Latino candidate. Trump runs again as 3rd party in 2020, but not 2024.
They would need to find a Mexican Latino who wants to restrict migration, one who is born in the US rather than being a naturalised citizen. Might be tough after this cycle.
It's probably eaiser to paint the Dems as the party of "other" and appeal to whites by saying only the GOP can look after the interests of white people.
If they can find a Latino who is willing to take a hard line on illegal immigration and overstays, while still keeping the door open for legal migration plus ensuring that blue collar workers get a fair deal from globalisation I think it would be a literal landslide vs Clinton in 2020 (assuming she runs again).
George P Bush as Latino candidate?
Well a Bush did win 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote and the presidency twice. So doubling down on identity politics as some here have suggested will not work.
So only the Dems should succeed from identity politics? I don't like the idea, but this is the natural consequence of identity politics and splitting voters into racial groups. I'm glad that Labour failed so badly to entrench it during the Blair years because of rebellious Sikhs and Hindus, and now African and West Indian blacks all shifting towards the Tories.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," doesn't sound like a principled approach. The aim should be to defeat or transcend identity politics.
Whoops - Times forced to issue printed apology after accusing Sajid Javid of saying that judges in the Brexit case were seeking to frustrate democracy.
He was actually referring to those who brought the case
Amazing that Peston gets fatty Patty on his show to castigate Javid but Peston and his team were incapable of researching the actual words used. One might suspect Peston of leaning towards his BFF Roland Rudd?
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Things could get interesting in texas if the polls are flaky.
I've been punting on Clinton there at between 14-20/1
Also on Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin & Minnesota at 4/1+
There has been a lot of talk about Hispanics being fired up to vote in this election, when they have been lackadaisical in the past. The problem they have in terms of making a difference is that they are massively concentrated in solidly Democrat California and solidly Republican Texas. Their vote makes the first even more Democrat and the second somewhat less Republican.
But as nearly 40% of the Texan population, Hispanics really could put Texas into play, particularly as that state is becoming more diverse for other reasons. My guess is that it won't happen this time, but unless the Republicans change tack, it will sooner or later. With Texas in the Democrat basket along with all the other big states, that would radically change the political landscape in the US. There are some senior Republicans who are very conscious of this.
The thing with Texas is, the normal Republican vote could decide to not bother voting as it is a safe area for them, and the huge influx of Hispanic votes could ( unlikely as it is) make a difference.
In 1968 Hubert Humphrey won Texas despite narrowly losing nationally to Richard Nixon. Carter also carried it in 1976- so it has not always been a banker for Republicans.
''Take the rust belt and begin making inroads in NE states for 2024. Eventually I think the GOP will be the party of whites and the Dems everyone else. It is the natural consequence of identity politics. ''
I agree. And how profoundly depressing is that?
Or, GOP elite will devise new rules that stop a Trump-type running next time and find a Latino candidate. Trump runs again as 3rd party in 2020, but not 2024.
They would need to find a Mexican Latino who wants to restrict migration, one who is born in the US rather than being a naturalised citizen. Might be tough after this cycle.
It's probably eaiser to paint the Dems as the party of "other" and appeal to whites by saying only the GOP can look after the interests of white people.
If they can find a Latino who is willing to take a hard line on illegal immigration and overstays, while still keeping the door open for legal migration plus ensuring that blue collar workers get a fair deal from globalisation I think it would be a literal landslide vs Clinton in 2020 (assuming she runs again).
George P Bush as Latino candidate?
Well a Bush did win 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote and the presidency twice. So doubling down on identity politics as some here have suggested will not work.
So only the Dems should succeed from identity politics? I don't like the idea, but this is the natural consequence of identity politics and splitting voters into racial groups. I'm glad that Labour failed so badly to entrench it during the Blair years because of rebellious Sikhs and Hindus, and now African and West Indian blacks all shifting towards the Tories.
Again, you know Trump bought it up and used it as the centrepiece of his nomination/campaign with the birther stuff and the wall/rapists comments???
The GOP and supporters can't complain about identity politics. Bush got 40% of Hispanics
Huge swing to T R U M P in the first New Hampshire declarations !
Millsfield reported Trump 16 and Hillary 4. Dixville reported Hillary 4 and Trump 2. Hart's reported Clinton 17 and Trump 14. So overall it's Trump 32 and Hillary 25.
In 2012, these three little townships voted Obama 28/14, so T R U M P is doing really well with a huge swing to him so far !
A closer look at the voting shows that Trump did well in Dixville but awfully badly in Notch.
The Notch is turning into a ghost town though.... Maybe no-one wants to live in the glare of the world's spotlight once every four years.
Teensy little villages out in the boonies all over the world are turning into ghost towns. It's better to live near other people.
Nothing better than I could imagine not living near anyone else.
A lot of people like the idea but in practice they want to live near work or school or hospital or whatever. Maybe you can work online, but you probably have shitty internet out there, too.
My reading is that Clinton will win but much tighter than anticipated - I'd love Jack's ARSE to be pouring out in the right area but think it's optimistic. Think we could be waiting for Colorado and Nevada to be sure.
290-250 or so?
ARSE4US is optimistic because it is correct now and historically. ARSE4US denial will not be tolerated ....
Nevada is done and the GOP Colorado early vote lead is well down on 2012 when Obama went on to win by 6 points.
Two Clinton Holds.
Yes agreed on Nevada and Colorado - but I'm saying that I think Hillary may lose East Coast toss-ups like Ohio and Florida, so be dependent on these two to get over the line.
Ohio on the east coast ... who knew ?!?! ....
You'll be telling me that Washington is on the west coast next when any fule knows the White House is down the road from Baltimore MD
''Take the rust belt and begin making inroads in NE states for 2024. Eventually I think the GOP will be the party of whites and the Dems everyone else. It is the natural consequence of identity politics. ''
I agree. And how profoundly depressing is that?
Or, GOP elite will devise new rules that stop a Trump-type running next time and find a Latino candidate. Trump runs again as 3rd party in 2020, but not 2024.
They would need to find a Mexican Latino who wants to restrict migration, one who is born in the US rather than being a naturalised citizen. Might be tough after this cycle.
It's probably eaiser to paint the Dems as the party of "other" and appeal to whites by saying only the GOP can look after the interests of white people.
If they can find a Latino who is willing to take a hard line on illegal immigration and overstays, while still keeping the door open for legal migration plus ensuring that blue collar workers get a fair deal from globalisation I think it would be a literal landslide vs Clinton in 2020 (assuming she runs again).
George P Bush as Latino candidate?
Well a Bush did win 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote and the presidency twice. So doubling down on identity politics as some here have suggested will not work.
So only the Dems should succeed from identity politics? I don't like the idea, but this is the natural consequence of identity politics and splitting voters into racial groups. I'm glad that Labour failed so badly to entrench it during the Blair years because of rebellious Sikhs and Hindus, and now African and West Indian blacks all shifting towards the Tories.
Oh not this again. The report that claimed that all these ethnic minorities were voting Tory in 2015 has long been discredited.
Maybe the opposition parties should actually suggest what the law should be?
They did.
Yet somehow despite having the majority of votes no new law was passed. Given that the devolved Scottish parliament isn't a one woman dictatorship I don't see how it could have been Sturgeon ignoring a law being enacted. It's almost like the opposition parties were engaged in pointless grandstanding rather than serious law making.
''Take the rust belt and begin making inroads in NE states for 2024. Eventually I think the GOP will be the party of whites and the Dems everyone else. It is the natural consequence of identity politics. ''
I agree. And how profoundly depressing is that?
Or, GOP elite will devise new rules that stop a Trump-type running next time and find a Latino candidate. Trump runs again as 3rd party in 2020, but not 2024.
They would need to find a Mexican Latino who wants to restrict migration, one who is born in the US rather than being a naturalised citizen. Might be tough after this cycle.
It's probably eaiser to paint the Dems as the party of "other" and appeal to whites by saying only the GOP can look after the interests of white people.
If they can find a Latino who is willing to take a hard line on illegal immigration and overstays, while still keeping the door open for legal migration plus ensuring that blue collar workers get a fair deal from globalisation I think it would be a literal landslide vs Clinton in 2020 (assuming she runs again).
George P Bush as Latino candidate?
Well a Bush did win 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote and the presidency twice. So doubling down on identity politics as some here have suggested will not work.
So only the Dems should succeed from identity politics? I don't like the idea, but this is the natural consequence of identity politics and splitting voters into racial groups. I'm glad that Labour failed so badly to entrench it during the Blair years because of rebellious Sikhs and Hindus, and now African and West Indian blacks all shifting towards the Tories.
What? The Republican party have been "succeeding" with identity politics for decades, and now its coming back to hurt them. Good.
Huge swing to T R U M P in the first New Hampshire declarations !
Millsfield reported Trump 16 and Hillary 4. Dixville reported Hillary 4 and Trump 2. Hart's reported Clinton 17 and Trump 14. So overall it's Trump 32 and Hillary 25.
In 2012, these three little townships voted Obama 28/14, so T R U M P is doing really well with a huge swing to him so far !
A closer look at the voting shows that Trump did well in Dixville but awfully badly in Notch.
The Notch is turning into a ghost town though.... Maybe no-one wants to live in the glare of the world's spotlight once every four years.
Teensy little villages out in the boonies all over the world are turning into ghost towns. It's better to live near other people.
Nothing better than I could imagine not living near anyone else.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
her website is very detailed on it you know
She has done an appalling job of presenting them....4.5 hrs of debate and I think there was something or other than college funding reform and that was literally it...I don't count the robbo box ticking statements as policies, where she would spend 2 mins making sure she said we have a unspecified plan that will help insert...blacks, gays, hispanics, old, young, coal miners, etc etc.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
Clinton launched the slogan at a campaign appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she told supporters, “On Day One of my Administration, I will work for you. I will fight for you. And I will not blow up the planet.”
But, even as Clinton spoke, the slogan came under fire from Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who said that it reflected “the failed policies of the past.”
“The American people have just had eight years of a President who didn’t blow up the planet,” Conway said. “Donald Trump is offering something different.”
Certainly has been curious the amount of ad money and big dog visits (Biden, Clintons, Obamas) they've used on Ohio recently - seemed to be suggesting they were always pretty confident it was closer than the public polling.
The camapign leak a week ago was internal Dem polling had it level but when has a campaign leak ever released bad polling data?
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
I'm sure you'll be passing the same advice to Jezza when he speaks about the Tory baby eater in chief in 10 Downing Street ....
Certainly has been curious the amount of ad money and big dog visits (Biden, Clintons, Obamas) they've used on Ohio recently - seemed to be suggesting they were always pretty confident it was closer than the public polling.
The camapign leak a week ago was internal Dem polling had it level but when has a campaign leak ever released bad polling data?
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
her website is very detailed on it you know
She has done an appalling job of presenting them....4.5 hrs of debate and I think there was something or other than college funding reform and that was literally it...I don't count the robbo box ticking statements as policies, where she would spend 2 mins making sure she said we have a unspecified plan that will help insert...blacks, gays, hispanics, old, young, coal miners, etc etc.
Voters say they want to hear about policy but it always polls badly as boring.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
The Twitter word analysis is telling - Trump's were mostly positive, Clinton's mostly negative. I think we all agree that this has been the worst campaign ever by the two most unsuitable candidates chosen by the main parties. Not too late to give Barry another year and start the whole damn thing over again, is it?
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
Clinton launched the slogan at a campaign appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she told supporters, “On Day One of my Administration, I will work for you. I will fight for you. And I will not blow up the planet.”
But, even as Clinton spoke, the slogan came under fire from Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who said that it reflected “the failed policies of the past.”
“The American people have just had eight years of a President who didn’t blow up the planet,” Conway said. “Donald Trump is offering something different.”
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
her website is very detailed on it you know
She has done an appalling job of presenting them....4.5 hrs of debate and I think there was something or other than college funding reform and that was literally it...I don't count the robbo box ticking statements as policies, where she would spend 2 mins making sure she said we have a unspecified plan that will help insert...blacks, gays, hispanics, old, young, coal miners, etc etc.
Voters say they want to hear about policy but it always polls badly as boring.
In comparison, I had a clear idea of some major changes Obama wanted to implement...while also still getting all the hopey changey stuff.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 6m6 minutes ago “Of the 707,844 early voters in Miami-Dade, 201,000 did not vote in 2012 – and 127,000 of them are Hispanic.”
Kaboom!
DNVs might have been weighted out of the polls but Hispanic doesn't tell us much. Are they most exercised by Obama's rapprochement with Cuba or Trump's Mexican wall ?
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
'Well, Trump is a crazy racist who I can't really trust with Nukes, but Clinton hasn't talked enough about her policies. So Trump it is!'
Is not a think which is happening. if someone cares that much about policies, they will look it up on her website.
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 6m6 minutes ago “Of the 707,844 early voters in Miami-Dade, 201,000 did not vote in 2012 – and 127,000 of them are Hispanic.”
Kaboom!
DNVs might have been weighted out of the polls but Hispanic doesn't tell us much. Are they most exercised by Obama's rapprochement with Cuba or Trump's Mexican wall ?
Lol if that is good news for Trump, my monkey is an uncle.
Big increase in the white vote in Florida too though.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
Except the Americans wanted to win the Cold War.
But that's long over, and what does the NATO alliance cost Germany compared to US or the USA? It's a point worth noting I think, that Americans will not simply forget this issue after they have elected Hillary.
I'm not sure whether it beats the 19th-century "Harcourt Interpolation", in which a disgruntled compositor inserted an extra sentence into a report of a speech by the Home Secretary: "The speaker then said he felt inclined for a bit of f*cking."
Clinton launched the slogan at a campaign appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she told supporters, “On Day One of my Administration, I will work for you. I will fight for you. And I will not blow up the planet.”
But, even as Clinton spoke, the slogan came under fire from Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who said that it reflected “the failed policies of the past.”
“The American people have just had eight years of a President who didn’t blow up the planet,” Conway said. “Donald Trump is offering something different.”
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
This was discussed by European countries, and the proposal is for an EU Army - spending extra money on another layer or two of brass hats overseeing the declining military capability.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
'Well, Trump is a crazy racist who I can't really trust with Nukes, but Clinton hasn't talked enough about her policies. So Trump it is!'
Is not a think which is happening. if someone cares that much about policies, they will look it up on her website.
Unfortunately, I think you overestimate the inclination of the average voter to do the work themselves.
But that's long over, and what does the NATO alliance cost Germany compared to US or the USA? It's a point worth noting I think, that Americans will not simply forget this issue after they have elected Hillary.
Americans (and some Brits) are getting sick of western Europe freeriding on NATO, expecting others to pick up the tab of policing their border with Russia. If the UK decreased defence spending to German levels it would save us £20bn per year, or £110bn over the last six years. That's not chump change. Translate that to America and we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Clinton will have to put pressure on Germany and it's client nations to increase defence spending, especially now that the UK will have a more detached approach to the EU border.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton's policies are largely in education and healthcare - wider availability of pre-school education, more affordable college education, fixing some aspects of Obamacare and so on. Her most noteworthy policy is a blanket naturalisation of illegal immigrants who meet basic criteria (length of residency, no criminal record)
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
This was discussed by European countries, and the proposal is for an EU Army - spending extra money on another layer or two of brass hats overseeing the declining military capability.
Amazingly the EU is pushing their army as a way of saving money. I guess they expect lower spending.
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 6m6 minutes ago “Of the 707,844 early voters in Miami-Dade, 201,000 did not vote in 2012 – and 127,000 of them are Hispanic.”
Kaboom!
DNVs might have been weighted out of the polls but Hispanic doesn't tell us much. Are they most exercised by Obama's rapprochement with Cuba or Trump's Mexican wall ?
Lol if that is good news for Trump, my monkey is an uncle.
Big increase in the white vote in Florida too though.
Yup, but that depends if its college or non-college educated.
And if Cuba is an issue, Trump breaking the embargo won't win him any votes.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
'Well, Trump is a crazy racist who I can't really trust with Nukes, but Clinton hasn't talked enough about her policies. So Trump it is!'
Is not a think which is happening. if someone cares that much about policies, they will look it up on her website.
How the hell is she supposed to talk about policies (and the the key time to do that as far as electorate is concerned is the debates) when she's up against a lunatic?
Clinton launched the slogan at a campaign appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she told supporters, “On Day One of my Administration, I will work for you. I will fight for you. And I will not blow up the planet.”
But, even as Clinton spoke, the slogan came under fire from Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who said that it reflected “the failed policies of the past.”
“The American people have just had eight years of a President who didn’t blow up the planet,” Conway said. “Donald Trump is offering something different.”
Did Kellyanne actually say that?
No it's one of the New Yorker's humorous pieces.
I messed the word 'humor' in the URL, that should have given it away. The best satire is that which convinces those who weren't paying attention properly!
The can't use Hadrian's Wall - it means England will lose a large part of lovely Northumbria. Instead, let's make it along the Antonine Wall. It'll be shorter (and therefore cheaper), and will mean Edinburgh can become English!
(Scotland can keep Glasgow)
Oh, and good luck everyone with their bets tonight.
The Antonine Wall is north of Glasgow as any fule kno.
There's a lovely bit of it not too far from the Falkirk Wheel.
But that's long over, and what does the NATO alliance cost Germany compared to US or the USA? It's a point worth noting I think, that Americans will not simply forget this issue after they have elected Hillary.
Americans (and some Brits) are getting sick of western Europe freeriding on NATO, expecting others to pick up the tab of policing their border with Russia. If the UK decreased defence spending to German levels it would save us £20bn per year, or £110bn over the last six years. That's not chump change. Translate that to America and we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Clinton will have to put pressure on Germany and it's client nations to increase defence spending, especially now that the UK will have a more detached approach to the EU border.
I think NATO needs to integrate more, if that means changing funding formulas then those will need to happen. Britain has the capability at some levels to handle a fleet ten times its current size, because it is technology which you only need to invest once and the other nine are much easier.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
Hils has all her policies on her website which anyone can view, thanks to the advent of a clever gadget called the internet.
Trump was the moron who made the election all about him. If he had concentrated on promoting his own policies rather trying to smear his opponents as criminals (she's been exonerated) entire demographics as criminals (see various racial groups) and insulting women, maybe we'd have seen a slightly more edifying debate.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
This was discussed by European countries, and the proposal is for an EU Army - spending extra money on another layer or two of brass hats overseeing the declining military capability.
Amazingly the EU is pushing their army as a way of saving money. I guess they expect lower spending.
Makes sense, less duplication, and you can hire people in poorer countries for less money. Doing this also works as a fiscal transfer, so the rich countries don't have to spend as much bailing the poor ones out.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
Hils has all her policies on her website which anyone can view, thanks to the advent of a clever gadget called the internet.
Trump was the moron who made the election all about him. If he had concentrated on promoting his own policies rather trying to smear his opponents as criminals (she's been exonerated) entire demographics as criminals (see various racial groups) and insulting women, maybe we'd have seen a slightly more edifying debate.
Trump made it about him and her, personally. It may have been the right choice even if it doesn't work.
Unfortunately for her, she's going to look very foolish over this. There is simply no case for the Scottish Parliament to have any vote here, because
a) UK constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster. b) The judgement going to appeal was that only Parliament could repeal that which IT had legislated - and there was no Scottish Parliament in 1972 nor did any other body legislate on the issue.
This is simply for her to be able to claim that the 'English' have locked Scotland out of the room again. She's trying to stoke enough resentment to overturn the last referendum on Independence. I doubt Scots are stupid enough to not see through that. She taking them for fools.
''Take the rust belt and begin making inroads in NE states for 2024. Eventually I think the GOP will be the party of whites and the Dems everyone else. It is the natural consequence of identity politics. ''
I agree. And how profoundly depressing is that?
Or, GOP elite will devise new rules that stop a Trump-type running next time and find a Latino candidate. Trump runs again as 3rd party in 2020, but not 2024.
They would need to find a Mexican Latino who wants to restrict migration, one who is born in the US rather than being a naturalised citizen. Might be tough after this cycle.
It's probably eaiser to paint the Dems as the party of "other" and appeal to whites by saying only the GOP can look after the interests of white people.
If they can find a Latino who is willing to take a hard line on illegal immigration and overstays, while still keeping the door open for legal migration plus ensuring that blue collar workers get a fair deal from globalisation I think it would be a literal landslide vs Clinton in 2020 (assuming she runs again).
George P Bush as Latino candidate?
Well a Bush did win 35% and 40% of the Hispanic vote and the presidency twice. So doubling down on identity politics as some here have suggested will not work.
So only the Dems should succeed from identity politics? I don't like the idea, but this is the natural consequence of identity politics and splitting voters into racial groups. I'm glad that Labour failed so badly to entrench it during the Blair years because of rebellious Sikhs and Hindus, and now African and West Indian blacks all shifting towards the Tories.
Again, you know Trump bought it up and used it as the centrepiece of his nomination/campaign with the birther stuff and the wall/rapists comments???
The GOP and supporters can't complain about identity politics. Bush got 40% of Hispanics
Nationalism and Nativism is the very essence of identity politics. Strange that Nationalists are so blind to it on the right, and so hyper-aware of it on the left.
One possible scenario is Trump doing badly where there are a lot of Latino voters but better than expected in states where the population is mostly white plus an African-American minority. So he could pick up Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, but lose Arizona and fail to win Nevada and Florida. That would give Clinton 283, Trump 255.
Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a substantial appetite in the West for encouraging the FRG to hugely build up their own military (history and all that), and asking the West Germans to pay a much larger surcharge than they already did for the privilege of hosting NATO's forces would have been pretty counterproductive in the ideological war the West was fighting; the German economic miracle was one of the strongest weapons they had.
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
So we get to voting day, watched all the debates and I still have f##k all clue what Clinton's policies are...other than "I'm not Trump".
Aye, massive lack of policies from Clinton - I think Trump has had alot more tbh.
Clinton has lots of detailed policy, but it's mostly small-bore stuff, it doesn't stick in the memory. In contrast Trump has lots of bold, grand policy ideas, but they're mostly epically retarded.
His most famous is probably build a wall as it has had the most derision, is actually the least dangerous / least stupid...which is kinda of saying something. As a) there is already a wall of sorts there and b) although it won't stop a lot of illegal immigration, it probably make smuggling a bit harder and c) the worst that happens he spends a load of money on a big shiny wall that employs a load of people to build it and charges tolls on those entering from Mexico.
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
He is right about one thing though - Europe should start to pay for its own defence (as the UK has). Americans should not be putting their tax dollars into protecting Europe so that Europeans can have a more generous welfare system or spend their money on other grand schemes. Had Germany had to pay its own way in this respect after WW2 for example, I think we would be looking at a very different economic picture in the post war decades. It would have reduced their 'miracle' significantly.
This was discussed by European countries, and the proposal is for an EU Army - spending extra money on another layer or two of brass hats overseeing the declining military capability.
Amazingly the EU is pushing their army as a way of saving money. I guess they expect lower spending.
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
Depressing thing there is that Hillary's tweets are mostly about Trump. She knows what the big voter motivation is, but it'd be nice if someone was voting FOR her.
Project Fear
Hils has all her policies on her website which anyone can view, thanks to the advent of a clever gadget called the internet.
Trump was the moron who made the election all about him. If he had concentrated on promoting his own policies rather trying to smear his opponents as criminals (she's been exonerated) entire demographics as criminals (see various racial groups) and insulting women, maybe we'd have seen a slightly more edifying debate.
and he might have won. Memo to GOP: telling a large % of the electorate to f-off and then persisting with a candidate who denigrates and assaults 52% of the electorate is dumb.
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
If the EU army is protecting the southern border of the EU I think quite a lot of people would think that was a job worth doing.
One possible scenario is Trump doing badly where there are a lot of Latino voters but better than expected in states where the population is mostly white plus an African-American minority. So he could pick up Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, but lose Arizona and fail to win Nevada and Florida. That would give Clinton 283, Trump 255.
I've just been pondering that. If the election hinges on identity then that holds.
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
Well yes. "For Juncker" doesn't have the same ring to it as "for queen and country".
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
Well yes. "For Juncker" doesn't have the same ring to it as "for queen and country".
Has anyone here ever exceeded a credit limit with a spread betting firm btw ?
What happens if you do ?
They can ask you for a 'margin' deposit, but I think that is normally used only for long-term bets, and you usually have a few days to pay. I don't think it's an issue tonight, but they may well ask you for a deposit if you want to place a new bet.
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
Well yes. "For Juncker" doesn't have the same ring to it as "for queen and country".
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
If the EU army is protecting the southern border of the EU I think quite a lot of people would think that was a job worth doing.
I'd assume plenty of Eastern Europeans would be happy to sign up to a army protecting their borders with Russia as well.
Yet another votecastr deadline comes and goes. Don't think this is happening guys.
Maybe they don't errm want to tell us something... ?
Looks like an easyish Clinton win from here but y'know...
Let's just say I'm quite happy with my £44 at stake on this election, which pays out on anything but a >5% Hillary win. Good luck to those with considerably bigger cojones!
They're going to save money by having so much discussion about rules of operation, deployment and engagement, that the troops never leave their barracks.
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
Well yes. "For Juncker" doesn't have the same ring to it as "for queen and country".
Unfortunately for her, she's going to look very foolish over this. There is simply no case for the Scottish Parliament to have any vote here, because
Why? The intervention is to ensure the government's appeal fails, which is will so she'll look like a winner.
I thought it was just to give her another opportunity to claim the English were doing down Scotland. Even more chance to say it if the Scottish lawyers are told their intervention is nothing to do with anything. She's not about the law, she's about the political advantage. Duh!
Has anyone here ever exceeded a credit limit with a spread betting firm btw ?
What happens if you do ?
They can ask you for a 'margin' deposit, but I think that is normally used only for long-term bets, and you usually have a few days to pay. I don't think it's an issue tonight, but they may well ask you for a deposit if you want to place a new bet.
I did that, but by the time the deposit was taken I didn't fancy the new spread H 330+ Sell @ 19.5 = Yes please, @ 17 = No thanks.
One possible scenario is Trump doing badly where there are a lot of Latino voters but better than expected in states where the population is mostly white plus an African-American minority. So he could pick up Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, but lose Arizona and fail to win Nevada and Florida. That would give Clinton 283, Trump 255.
You can even construct a scenario in which he loses heavily in the South, including Georgia, but sweeps the mid-West for victory. It doesn't seem very likely, though.
Comments
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/the-trump-workers-voting-against-the-boss/
The GOP and supporters can't complain about identity politics. Bush got 40% of Hispanics
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
Final pick: Clinton 322
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/304828-who-is-going-to-win-the-pundits-weigh-in
Bkacks shifting toward the Tories? LOL.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-final-appeal-to-voters-clinton-changes-slogan-to-wont-blow-up-planet
Clinton launched the slogan at a campaign appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she told supporters, “On Day One of my Administration, I will work for you. I will fight for you. And I will not blow up the planet.”
But, even as Clinton spoke, the slogan came under fire from Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, who said that it reflected “the failed policies of the past.”
“The American people have just had eight years of a President who didn’t blow up the planet,” Conway said. “Donald Trump is offering something different.”
“Of the 707,844 early voters in Miami-Dade, 201,000 did not vote in 2012 – and 127,000 of them are Hispanic.”
Kaboom!
In comparison, all the protectionist stuff will cost lots of jobs, the anti-NATO could result in nations deciding to build their own nuclear weapons, etc etc etc...
"With a long history of election results being decided by 1% or less, anything above 1% is a Florida landslide."
http://saintpetersblog.com/kevin-cate-hillary-clinton-will-win-florida-landslide/
Is not a think which is happening. if someone cares that much about policies, they will look it up on her website.
Big increase in the white vote in Florida too though.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/27/hillary-clintons-initiative-on-technology-innovation/
"The speaker then said he felt inclined for a bit of f*cking."
https://mobile.twitter.com/BullCityVA
Clinton will have to put pressure on Germany and it's client nations to increase defence spending, especially now that the UK will have a more detached approach to the EU border.
And if Cuba is an issue, Trump breaking the embargo won't win him any votes.
Trump was the moron who made the election all about him. If he had concentrated on promoting his own policies rather trying to smear his opponents as criminals (she's been exonerated) entire demographics as criminals (see various racial groups) and insulting women, maybe we'd have seen a slightly more edifying debate.
Looks like an easyish Clinton win from here but y'know...
a) UK constitutional issues are reserved to Westminster.
b) The judgement going to appeal was that only Parliament could repeal that which IT had legislated - and there was no Scottish Parliament in 1972 nor did any other body legislate on the issue.
This is simply for her to be able to claim that the 'English' have locked Scotland out of the room again. She's trying to stoke enough resentment to overturn the last referendum on Independence. I doubt Scots are stupid enough to not see through that. She taking them for fools.
What happens if you do ?
Who is going to sign up to die for J-C Drunker anyway?
But hey, we got the 2nd amendment vote fellahs.
FREEEEEDOMMMM is all she has left
Check out the video of the Clinton plane doing something called the Mannequin Challenge.
Ends with Huma and Bon Jovi, but no idea who the woman in red is.
H 330+ Sell @ 19.5 = Yes please, @ 17 = No thanks.
NEW THREAD
Demon 1: Tories 2010
2: Tories 2015
3: Brexit
4: Trump.
The previous 3 demons were all posted prior to the 'event'.