Just realised I basically broke even on the night. Friends making gags that I'd make better returns from spending 20 hours over the last few weeks doing a paper round.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
Trump did a Lynton Crosby whilst having virtually none of the skill of Lynton Crosby.
Or does he..?
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
Trump did a Lynton Crosby whilst having virtually none of the skill of Lynton Crosby.
Or does he..?
One of the CNN talking heads made quite an interesting point...Obama managed to harness the internet for small donations and spread his message, Trump has harnessed social media and the popularity of reality shows (not just his own, but the general formula that is so popular i.e you have to have drama and outrage) to spread his message.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Looks all in all as if Trump's 72 hour blitz was crucial in getting him over the line while Clinton did fewer events he built momentum in the key states
All those days / weeks when Clinton wasn't doing any proper rallies....
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, although I've not been to States for about 15 years, I gather the state of roads, bridges, airports, rail stations is shocking by European standards.
Very state by state dependant.
Like the Uk or Europe - some French service stations are an outrage,
Newton, New Hampshire just declared; there was a 5.8% swing to Trump. Trump now leads by 909 votes. Remaining towns voted 43.7% for Romney - Trump needs 48.8%, a 5.1% swing.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
I said yesterday, his much derided wall...I doubt it will actually tackle illegal immigration, it will certainly create a load of jobs to build it bigly...
The thing about Hillary is that she stood by the appalling behaviour of Bill against all those women. No sisterly support there if she was a feminist.
Alleged behaviour in both Trump and Bill's case. But in Trump's case, the language he has himself used give some credence to the complaints against him. But like information security, this election is not going to lead to better behaviour towards women (and men in some cases as well).
Possibly right about better attitudes towards females not going to happen, although it would be nice for PB to show the way! (Snip)
If you're referring to Plato, I doubt many of the comments thrown her way had anything to do with her gender. More to do with the comments and the tone therein.
All I need now is Andy Murray not to be SPoTY and my view of democracy (and it's betting profitability in Scrap towers) - especially after the high watermark of 2015 - will be at an all time low.
Even Mark Reckless getting re-elected wasn't that bad.
Does make a mockery of the Electoral College somewhat imho – could it be dumped for something else, or is it set in aspic by the US constitution?
It's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution.
To change it, you'd need a majority of 2/3rd in both the House & the Senate, and then ratification by 3/4ths of all States.
Thanks for the reply Mr vik – I suspected as much.
While the electoral college system is constitutional, it's up to the states how to apportion their electors (hence Nebraska and Maine doing it differently to the rest).
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
I do wonder if there'll be some more momentum for this now.
(given that small population states are heavily weighted to the GOP).
Is this true though? The ECV numbers are roughly proportional to the population based on censuses. There may be a small bias to the GOP given rounding errors in the smaller states. But the Dems problem re the popular vote vs the EC outcome is that they rack up very large excess votes in CA and NY, and very large losing votes in TX and FL. No amount of making the EC votes more proportional will change that.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
Looks all in all as if Trump's 72 hour blitz was crucial in getting him over the line while Clinton did fewer events he built momentum in the key states
All those days / weeks when Clinton wasn't doing any proper rallies....
With Clinton wining the popular vote, she now has something positive to say to all her supporters and campaigners, if she can bother her arse to stop sulking and face them publicly.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
Trump did a Lynton Crosby whilst having virtually none of the skill of Lynton Crosby.
Or does he..?
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
You'll get your money back in a future betting event. Don't worry.
Given that Hillary fell short in exactly those places where she most needed to do well, it is tempting to wonder whether her advertising blitz and sophisticated GOTV operation got out the vote for Trump.
Yes, for a while her Twitter feed was indistinguishable from pro-Trump propaganda. She just assumed the message was unpalatable but obviously a lot of registered Democrats in the rust-belt liked what they heard.
"They would not listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will."
No doubt a legal challenge is on the way. At least it will keep them off street corners or Islington dinner parties.
Trump will tone down the rhetoric. He never had any intention of building a Mexican wall. If the thick white men in America understand that, why don't the media "elite"?
He needs to be seen to fixing these problems if he wants to get re-elected in 2020
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
They could always employ a load of illegal immigrant labour from Mexico....Trump has plenty of expertise in that field.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
But to do that, Russia has to be a civilised player.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
Does make a mockery of the Electoral College somewhat imho – could it be dumped for something else, or is it set in aspic by the US constitution?
It's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution.
To change it, you'd need a majority of 2/3rd in both the House & the Senate, and then ratification by 3/4ths of all States.
Thanks for the reply Mr vik – I suspected as much.
While the electoral college system is constitutional, it's up to the states how to apportion their electors (hence Nebraska and Maine doing it differently to the rest).
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
I do wonder if there'll be some more momentum for this now.
(given that small population states are heavily weighted to the GOP).
Is this true though? The ECV numbers are roughly proportional to the population based on censuses. There may be a small bias to the GOP given rounding errors in the smaller states. But the Dems problem re the popular vote vs the EC outcome is that they rack up very large excess votes in CA and NY, and very large losing votes in TX and FL. No amount of making the EC votes more proportional will change that.
The ECV are numbers of Senators + number of Reps - which gives a slight bias to the smaller states. The last I read on it California was something like 15% less influential than it should be on a straight proportional basis.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
The problem is, as Nate Cohn pointed out in July, that whites were a much larger part of Obama's coalition than has generally been acknowledged because previous exit polls have been more bullish on minority turnout than is probably the case. Democrats have been under the assumption that they just needed to court the minority vote and that their diminishing white block would stick by them. Trump drove a wedge through that coalition that has hit them harder than they anticipated.
It seems I missed all the fun last night. It looks as though it would have been a fantastic election to be live-betting on and now I'm feeling sulky about that.
Well done to @PlatoSays for sticking to her guns under fire. Unlike almost all of the other Trumpers, she did not seek to distance herself from the object of her admiration and she never disappeared when things looked bleak for her man.
Those Leave supporters who are appalled by Donald Trump's election might wish to reflect on that feeling at their leisure. You can't separate the victory from the manner of the victory. That was true of the EU referendum and it will be true of Donald Trump's presidency.
Rarely has a man appeared so unworthy of the hopes vested in him by those who voted for him, but they can't say they weren't warned. Once again, it may very well be that those voters who most enthusiastically voted for him that will be most completely shafted by the consequences.
And sadly, the continent we live in is a much less safe place at the end of 2016 than it started it.
You have zero evidence for your last assertion. Trumps foreign policy statements have been relatively consistent - aggressive defensively but relatively non-interventionist internationally. Hillary was a died-in-the-wool hawk. The former appears to me (and surely to most people applying logic) to be by far the safer option. To believe otherwise is to believe that America's constant foreign campaigns have made us safer, which is a patently absurd stance.
The new foreign policy (provided it is carried through) is quite timely for where the US is now. It has echoes of Stalin's 'Socialism in one country' as opposed to Lenin's previous 'Permanent revolution'. The former was a policy of essentially building a wall around the USSR, rather than the system being dependent on other countries consistently toppling in its favour. And of course it managed to keep the USSR in place for another 50 years. An America less interested in worldwide meddling and more interested in its backyard can in my book only be a good thing.
I presume the 'continent we live in' means Europe. Given Trump's comments on NATO that doesn't seem unreasonable...
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Easier with Germany than with Russia. Germany was alway an integral part of Western and Central Europe, economically and culturally. Russia, not so much. Never was. Different religion, different culture, never had a true middle class (serfdom to communism to robber barons), has no tradition of democracy, has never had stable state institutions separate from the crown. Not to mention its national paranoia and inferiority complex.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
How will a tax cutting administration pay for that?
So I think I'm right in saying that the Democrat has got the most votes in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections?
If this had been an AV election rather than FPTP I think Trump may have won the national popular vote through Johnson's preferences. Not to mention the GOP have now won more EC votes than any presidential election since 1988
And if it had been a straight election on the popular vote then Clinton would be President. What-ifs such as this don't matter; the key is that Americans haven't ended up with the President most of them voted for.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
How will a tax cutting administration pay for that?
Art of the Deal....take out big loans...then default on them...
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
It will create jobs in construction and engineering as well as concrete and steel industries. Not cheap to finance though at the same time as massive tax cuts!
It all has a ring of a certain German populist politician and how he rebuilt his country.
Trump won't run again, and is likely to get hammered in the mid terms.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
How will a tax cutting administration pay for that?
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
It will create jobs in construction and engineering as well as concrete and steel industries. Not cheap to finance though at the same time as massive tax cuts!
It all has a ring of a certain German populist politician and how he rebuilt his country.
Trump won't run again, and is likely to get hammered in the mid terms.
European road trip - a bit of coaching for Marine next spring and then a stop in Germany with Frauke Petry ?
Won't he be a bit busy being part of The Donald's administration?
Nah, that's too much like work and responsibility
I have to say, I can't imagine two pints, two bottles of plonk, two bourbons and a packet of ciggies as part of a daily light lunch schedule will go down well in Washington...
"They would not listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will."
No doubt a legal challenge is on the way. At least it will keep them off street corners or Islington dinner parties.
Trump will tone down the rhetoric. He never had any intention of building a Mexican wall. If the thick white men in America understand that, why don't the media "elite"?
He needs to be seen to fixing these problems if he wants to get re-elected in 2020
If. That is a big if. Unlike most presidents, Trump will face an immediate decline in his quality of life. He is a billionaire with a better plane than Air Force One and a better home than the White House: probably New York's only Loius XIV triplex penthouse. It is also not clear he'd have much appetite for politics -- in business his word is (more or less) law; now he must compromise. He will also be 74 next time.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Given that Hillary fell short in exactly those places where she most needed to do well, it is tempting to wonder whether her advertising blitz and sophisticated GOTV operation got out the vote for Trump.
Yes, for a while her Twitter feed was indistinguishable from pro-Trump propaganda. She just assumed the message was unpalatable but obviously a lot of registered Democrats in the rust-belt liked what they heard.
(As I understand it, PACS and SuperPACs can raise and spend their own money but cannot donate it to candidates and must keep their campaigns separate. Correct?)
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
The problem is, as Nate Cohn pointed out in July, that whites were a much larger part of Obama's coalition than has generally been acknowledged because previous exit polls have been more bullish on minority turnout than is probably the case. Democrats have been under the assumption that they just needed to court the minority vote and that their diminishing white block would stick by them. Trump drove a wedge through that coalition that has hit them harder than they anticipated.
Blue collar trade unionists in heavy industry were as much a part of the Democratic coalition as the Labour Party here. No longer true when those industries are on their uppers.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
yup
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Or maybe you were right and the polls were really wrong. That is, Trump was actually a decent amount in front that it didn't matter that his ground game wasn't very good.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
yup
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
So jealous of your £3.3k!
Wish I'd had the balls to go all-in on Trump and not cash-out so early.
I would argue our military is still underfunded. Navy needs additional frigates and crew. Subs are about right. We should really have 2 x extra destroyers.
RAF just about ok, but could use a couple of extra squadrons of eurofighters.
The army is now just a national militia.
I agree that the military is underfunded but by more than you seem to think.
The navy is in dire straights. Its ASW capability is nowhere near what is needed to defend ourselves now let lone against an increasingly capable Sov submarine fleet and the plan is to cut it back even further. The anti-surface capability is even worse, a few obsolescent Harpoons and that is about it. Air defence is good but not enough of it. Likewise the submarines, which are just about the only offensive capability we have left. Even the new carriers when they eventually get into service will not help much as there are no plans to give their aircraft any anti-ship capability.
Every plan the navy has had over the past few decades has been chipped away. The Type 45 capabilities were emasculated from the original spec and the numbers halved. They are doing the same to the T26. The number of Astutes were cut. But we are going to get get two shiny new carriers that the rest of the RN will have to protect, but who will not actually be able to project sea power.
Then the is the RFA which has also been eroded with ships sold almost as soon as they came into service and capabilities not replaced.
The RN and the RFA also has terrible manpower problems. People are leaving the service in large numbers, especially the senior rates - the people with the skills and knowledge to keep engines and things going. Ships have been tied up alongside for want of crew and some have only been able to put to sea because we have borrowed skilled engineers from the US Coastguard.
The state of the RN for an island nation dependent on imports for its food and trade for its living is a feckin disgrace.
The Crabs have done OK, in fact they still wield too much influence over the defence budget. I would take the F35s off them and give them all to the RN, but I agree they need a couple more squadrons of Tiffies.
As for the army, it is now so small I am not sure what the point of it is. It cannot fight a land war even as part of an alliance against a state actor. It might be best to keep the Brigade and put the rest out of its misery. An expanded Royal Marines, with its own artillery and engineering capability, will cover any short-term expeditionary warfare we might need.
Does anyone know what's happening with the MI and NH results - they haven't updated in hours.
Trump 99% wins MI, Hillary has around 80% chance to win NH
Thanks.
I was impressed with the nyt website http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire. better than some I could mention. It picked up the Florida swing very early. (Not sure about the rest as I went to bed and missed the excitement).
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
yup
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
biden
Biden's the vice president -- how could he run as an outsider? His two previous failed presidential runs suggest he is not a good campaigner either.
European road trip - a bit of coaching for Marine next spring and then a stop in Germany with Frauke Petry ?
I'm a celebrity get me out of here.
That is the rumour. The producers baulked at his demanded fee for Big Brother, but the talks have been more fruitful on sticking him in the jungle.
Oh, how the Remainers could get their frustrations over Brexit out their system without having to move from in front of their telly...." Just one more Kangroo knob, Nigel, and your campmates will have dinner tonight...."
Does anyone know what's happening with the MI and NH results - they haven't updated in hours.
Trump 99% wins MI, Hillary has around 80% chance to win NH
Thanks.
I was impressed with the nyt website http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire. better than some I could mention. It picked up the Florida swing very early. (Not sure about the rest as I went to bed and missed the excitement).
That website and this site saved/earnt me a small fortune.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Oh, I agree. But we missed that boat in the 1990s.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
It's never too late and the differences are not insurmountable. While Russia is still feeling the pain of the sanctions regime is really an ideal time to open some fundamental questions about the type of relationship that Russia should have with the West.
If Russia was (and I wish it were) a free liberal democracy, rather than a criminal mafia state run by a murderer, a liar and a bully, I'd agree with you.
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
"They would not listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will."
No doubt a legal challenge is on the way. At least it will keep them off street corners or Islington dinner parties.
Trump will tone down the rhetoric. He never had any intention of building a Mexican wall. If the thick white men in America understand that, why don't the media "elite"?
He needs to be seen to fixing these problems if he wants to get re-elected in 2020
If. That is a big if. Unlike most presidents, Trump will face an immediate decline in his quality of life. He is a billionaire with a better plane than Air Force One and a better home than the White House: probably New York's only Loius XIV triplex penthouse. It is also not clear he'd have much appetite for politics -- in business his word is (more or less) law; now he must compromise. He will also be 74 next time.
He is planning to govern from his "southern white house" as he calls his house in FL apparently at least part of the year.
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Or maybe you were right and the polls were really wrong. That is, Trump was actually a decent amount in front that it didn't matter that his ground game wasn't very good.
50,000 unpaid but enthusiastic recruiters can do a lot more than 50 paid bums on seats.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
So jealous of your £3.3k!
Wish I'd had the balls to go all-in on Trump and not cash-out so early.
It was Alistair who pointed out the LV screen a couple of weeks ago plus Robert's tip last night on huge rural turnout that made me back him at 6.5-6.7 even after I'd laid at 7 just minutes earlier. At that moment it clicked that the polls were all wrong, exit polls as well since they are structurally biased towards regular normal turnout areas. If an area with usually low turnout that doesn't have an exit pollster there the poll just won't pick up the surge.
Hopefully the polling industry stumbles on, look at how well we've all done out of May 2015, Brexit and now the Trump surge that the polls all missed.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
He won't but if he pulled some federal funding from medicare/medicaid/some of the more bloated defence programmes to do that, he could whilst still maintaining spending in a broadly sensible envelope.
I want to do a George Osborne should be advisor to Donald Trump thread.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
The problem is, as Nate Cohn pointed out in July, that whites were a much larger part of Obama's coalition than has generally been acknowledged because previous exit polls have been more bullish on minority turnout than is probably the case. Democrats have been under the assumption that they just needed to court the minority vote and that their diminishing white block would stick by them. Trump drove a wedge through that coalition that has hit them harder than they anticipated.
A black man did better with white people in the mid west then a white woman. So Obama's loss of white votes between 2008 and 2012 obviously wasn't racism. So when people Obama won reelection in 2012 because black turnout was a record that needs to be challenged.
Saw Engel's reaction to the Trump win live last night. I had assumed he was a Clinton political operative by his analysis. Turns out he is NBC's chief diplomatic correspondent.
He may have been right in his analysis of international reaction, but this guy is way to vested in his own personal views to provide anything like an objective analysis. What has journalism come too? No wonder the public has abandoned broadcast TV and radio as a source of non-partisan news.
Scroll to the bottom of the link for the video ...
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
Arguing that one should vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman, just to make a point about feminism, is precisely the sort of identity politics people are fed up with.
A slightly more flippant example over here is the plethora of idiots arguing that the next James Bond should be a woman.
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more fer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
yup
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
biden
Biden's the vice president -- how could he run as an outsider? His two previous failed presidential runs suggest he is not a good campaigner either.
After Clinton's defeat the Berniebots will ensure the Democrats pick a leftwing populist in 2020, probably Warren maybe Sanders if he wins again. The Clinton DNC grip on the party has just Breen destroyed much as the Blairites have lost control of Labour
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
There is an important point here that should not get lost. Rural, or as they call it, small town America has been royally screwed but not just or even mainly by globalisation. Even if the rest of the world ceased to exist, they'd still have lost their shops to the web, and had already lost office jobs to the cities and factories to other states. Trump can't reverse that, and no-one else is trying.
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
As you say, the problem isn't with women, it's with that particular arrogant, corrupt and self-serving woman.
Elizabeth Warren must be in with a good shout of the Dem nomination next time out. She'd get a good female turnout and a lot of the Bernie supporters, some of whom clearly voted for Trump over Clinton yesterday.
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back....just not from vchhhhhhinaaaa.
I know a fair few feminists, and talk to them a great deal - enough to realise there are as many different strands of feminism as there are of any other ism. But with two exceptions they were all for Hilary. Her deficiencies could be ignored for the advantage of having a female president.
I pointed out that she might well be the *wrong* candidate: that her becoming President would have little to do with feminism and more to do with her husband's position and record than fighting a supposedly misogynistic system.
Why is this a major setback for feminism? Because the first female candidate with a realistic chance of becoming president has utterly failed. Any other female candidate would automatically be compared to Clinton, and suffer for the comparison. It also has not eased the progression path for women to reach the top, which Hilary somewhat bypassed. Heck, even Palin's better in that regard, despite her manifest faults.
I don't expect the reds or blues to pick another female presidential candidate for three or four elections.
I really think the problem was THIS woman, not a system stacked against women. Picking a woman not mired in long-standing questions about their financial probity might be a good start. And not one who is part of an existing White House dynasty (sorry Michelle). One perhaps fully open about any health issues too?
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
yup
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
But would they tho? If it was Bernie he was equal with Trump on trade but worse then him on immigration and Islam.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Are you a crazy person?
It works until the electors in each of the respective democracies within such a system decide it isn't working out for them anymore.
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Or maybe you were right and the polls were really wrong. That is, Trump was actually a decent amount in front that it didn't matter that his ground game wasn't very good.
50,000 unpaid but enthusiastic recruiters can do a lot more than 50 paid bums on seats.
Unless they were 50,000 Liberal Democrats in the 2015 general election....
Will Richard Nabavi's bet with Ladbrokes, involving Trump winning between 21 - 30 States, just sneak in as a winner? Having appeared an absolute certainty throughout the contest, by my reckoning it now requires Hillary to win the cliffhanger in New Hampshire to restrict the Donald to winning the upper limit of 30 States.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
He won't but if he pulled some federal funding from medicare/medicaid/some of the more bloated defence programmes to do that, he could whilst still maintaining spending in a broadly sensible envelope.
I want to do a George Osborne should be advisor to Donald Trump thread.
Does anyone know what's happening with the MI and NH results - they haven't updated in hours.
Trump 99% wins MI, Hillary has around 80% chance to win NH
Thanks.
I was impressed with the nyt website http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire. better than some I could mention. It picked up the Florida swing very early. (Not sure about the rest as I went to bed and missed the excitement).
That website and this site saved/earnt me a small fortune.
It always does. When I do win big, or big-ish (sadly, not this time) I always aim to donate a small chunk of it to OGH.
Without him, TSE and Robert all running it, I doubt we'd have the winnings.
I think kicking Mexico out of NAFTA is a serious prospect btw.
I am guessing that will force lots of companies back over to the US side of the border and allow The Donald to claim he is bringing jobs back.
Yes, in the short term reintroduction of tariffs for Mexican imports will bring back loads of industrial jobs. When I was at Sony I remember we moved a TV factory out of the US and into Mexico when NAFTA came into force. About 3000 jobs, plus some support industries so maybe 6000 jobs lost in all. Remember back then Sony TVs had absolutely huge margins and were high value goods, not the commoditised version we see today. It was purely a money saving move to increase profits at the expense of US workers.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
He won't but if he pulled some federal funding from medicare/medicaid/some of the more bloated defence programmes to do that, he could whilst still maintaining spending in a broadly sensible envelope.
I want to do a George Osborne should be advisor to Donald Trump thread.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
There is an important point here that should not get lost. Rural, or as they call it, small town America has been royally screwed but not just or even mainly by globalisation. Even if the rest of the world ceased to exist, they'd still have lost their shops to the web, and had already lost office jobs to the cities and factories to other states. Trump can't reverse that, and no-one else is trying.
Having travelled a lot across the US, especially through small towns...one thing that has struck me over the past 5-10 years, how many have become dominated and monopolized by just a handful of stores e.g. I have been to lots of small towns, where main street has basically been driven out of business and everybody has to shop at THE Walmart.
In those communities, everybody knows everybody and so they all know Joe who used to run hardware store etc...and now they are greeters at Walmart on minimum wage.
In the UK, that has happened to some extent, but the vast majority of towns have a range of (food) stores.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
A better deterrent would be giving them too much to lose by becoming integrated into the European and North Atlantic system. No-one now talks about deterring Germany from invading France, and it's not because we trust them to elect 'nice' leaders but because we've worked hard to entrench common interests.
Are you a crazy person?
It works until the electors in each of the respective democracies within such a system decide it isn't working out for them anymore.
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
I said yesterday he couldn't win because he hasn't a clue how to play the game e.g. GOTV, TV ads in right places etc.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Or maybe you were right and the polls were really wrong. That is, Trump was actually a decent amount in front that it didn't matter that his ground game wasn't very good.
50,000 unpaid but enthusiastic recruiters can do a lot more than 50 paid bums on seats.
Unless they were 50,000 Liberal Democrats in the 2015 general election....
Have to say thanks to Robert last night for pointing out the mega turnout in rural areas. The single most profitable betting night I've had. Still got a huge smile on my face!
I presume you have spent the morning checking out tripadvisor reviews on flash hotels in south hemisphere...
Looking at flights on Cathay Pacific right now, if I book via BA I might be able wangle an upgrade to club class given why I'm planning the Fiji trip.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
They need to do it, and it will create thousands of jobs. Will probably be very high on the Trump agenda.
Also very, very costly. Though they do like their 'grand' infrastructure projects (e.g. the farcical Boston Big Dig), sometimes at the cost of maintaining what they have.
He won't but if he pulled some federal funding from medicare/medicaid/some of the more bloated defence programmes to do that, he could whilst still maintaining spending in a broadly sensible envelope.
I want to do a George Osborne should be advisor to Donald Trump thread.
Comments
That doesn't grate. At all.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Like the Uk or Europe - some French service stations are an outrage,
Trump now leads by 909 votes.
Remaining towns voted 43.7% for Romney - Trump needs 48.8%, a 5.1% swing.
Even Mark Reckless getting re-elected wasn't that bad.
Russia is too nationalist and imperialist now to settle for anything less than its own sphere of influence and satellite states.
No-one wins every single time.
How does that compare with the norm?
@TheUnionDivvie
>The figures here: http://tinyurl.com/pljocf7 show anyone below $49,999 voted Dem, in substantially larger numbers than 2012.
The figures there actually seem to show 53% (for under 30k) and 51% (for 30k to 50k).
Interesting interpretation of "anyone".
At the moment it is not.
European road trip - a bit of coaching for Marine next spring and then a stop in Germany with Frauke Petry ?
Most influential British politicians on the world stage since WW II.
Does Farage make the Top ten?
It all has a ring of a certain German populist politician and how he rebuilt his country.
Trump won't run again, and is likely to get hammered in the mid terms.
https://youtu.be/9nhRViM02Mk
That basic fact hasnt changed despite 1944/5
NB Trump at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 benefitted from more money spent by PACS and SuperPACS than Clinton - but less forhis own campaign.
(As I understand it, PACS and SuperPACs can raise and spend their own money but cannot donate it to candidates and must keep their campaigns separate. Correct?)
There were many folks who would love to see the first female President - but also thought that Hillary Clinton was not a WORTHY first woman President. She also had no obvious personal political creed - which transferred into bland nothingness. Like "America is great because America is good" - wtf? NO!!! - America is great WHEN America is good maybe. So tell us the policies - of how America will earn that sobriquet of "great".
A also think "feminism" needs to rebrand itself. -isms nowadays are largely negatives. Racism. Fascism. Alcoholism. All negative. It needs something at least neutral. Or better still, celebratory of being a woman.
Vaginians?
and anyone pointing this out would meet a wall of EVIL Donald abuse from the Clintonites
The Democrats should have had a different canidiate and they would have won
Wish I'd had the balls to go all-in on Trump and not cash-out so early.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWLJmbytkk
The navy is in dire straights. Its ASW capability is nowhere near what is needed to defend ourselves now let lone against an increasingly capable Sov submarine fleet and the plan is to cut it back even further. The anti-surface capability is even worse, a few obsolescent Harpoons and that is about it. Air defence is good but not enough of it. Likewise the submarines, which are just about the only offensive capability we have left. Even the new carriers when they eventually get into service will not help much as there are no plans to give their aircraft any anti-ship capability.
Every plan the navy has had over the past few decades has been chipped away. The Type 45 capabilities were emasculated from the original spec and the numbers halved. They are doing the same to the T26. The number of Astutes were cut. But we are going to get get two shiny new carriers that the rest of the RN will have to protect, but who will not actually be able to project sea power.
Then the is the RFA which has also been eroded with ships sold almost as soon as they came into service and capabilities not replaced.
The RN and the RFA also has terrible manpower problems. People are leaving the service in large numbers, especially the senior rates - the people with the skills and knowledge to keep engines and things going. Ships have been tied up alongside for want of crew and some have only been able to put to sea because we have borrowed skilled engineers from the US Coastguard.
The state of the RN for an island nation dependent on imports for its food and trade for its living is a feckin disgrace.
The Crabs have done OK, in fact they still wield too much influence over the defence budget. I would take the F35s off them and give them all to the RN, but I agree they need a couple more squadrons of Tiffies.
As for the army, it is now so small I am not sure what the point of it is. It cannot fight a land war even as part of an alliance against a state actor. It might be best to keep the Brigade and put the rest out of its misery. An expanded Royal Marines, with its own artillery and engineering capability, will cover any short-term expeditionary warfare we might need.
Oh, how the Remainers could get their frustrations over Brexit out their system without having to move from in front of their telly...." Just one more Kangroo knob, Nigel, and your campmates will have dinner tonight...."
I am a monarchist (we are actually quite few and far between on pb) and I think one of the best thing for Russia would be a constitutional monarch by bringing back the Tsar, with a prime minister held in check by a new constitution beneath it.
Russians are proud people, symbols and icons matter, and the orthodox church and (yes) the Tsar command quite a following.
Hopefully the polling industry stumbles on, look at how well we've all done out of May 2015, Brexit and now the Trump surge that the polls all missed.
I want to do a George Osborne should be advisor to Donald Trump thread.
He may have been right in his analysis of international reaction, but this guy is way to vested in his own personal views to provide anything like an objective analysis. What has journalism come too? No wonder the public has abandoned broadcast TV and radio as a source of non-partisan news.
Scroll to the bottom of the link for the video ...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/world-reacts-trump-s-election-win-it-s-end-era-n681031
A slightly more flippant example over here is the plethora of idiots arguing that the next James Bond should be a woman.
Elizabeth Warren must be in with a good shout of the Dem nomination next time out. She'd get a good female turnout and a lot of the Bernie supporters, some of whom clearly voted for Trump over Clinton yesterday.
Then you have a problem.
Quite. you get the feeling that both sides sort of hope this intractable problem will just go away.
Neither has any real solutions. (what real solutions are there?).
Having appeared an absolute certainty throughout the contest, by my reckoning it now requires Hillary to win the cliffhanger in New Hampshire to restrict the Donald to winning the upper limit of 30 States.
Without him, TSE and Robert all running it, I doubt we'd have the winnings.
In those communities, everybody knows everybody and so they all know Joe who used to run hardware store etc...and now they are greeters at Walmart on minimum wage.
In the UK, that has happened to some extent, but the vast majority of towns have a range of (food) stores.
oh wait
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Modernising-the-Great-Western-railway.pdf
Would be amazed if that the stuff re project management lacking critical path analysis is correct, but some eyebrows might rise if it is.
Bar is high for the honeymoon now!
V happy for you.