Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
Especially given that the Trump University case is incoming
What's the betting that gets kicked into the future and then quietly dropped?
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
Some people here think it's terrible, some don't. That seems very balanced, after all 59 million Americans seem to think he was the better choice. I'm sure you can find other sites where you can converse only with people who agree with you.
A thought.
It's not the job of elections to select the "best" government.
It's certainly not the job of elections to select the "best" governments, where "best" is defined by the personal tastes of people living thousands of miles from the fray.
It is the job of elections to ensure government by consent, that the people get a say in who they would prefer to occupy that office, and in return for that right they have to put up with whoever won the democratic mandate. Argue against, protest again, vote against - fine.... but (s)he's your president whichever way you voted.
In that respect, for all the appalling candidates, and the grippingly atrocious campaign, and the internationally unpalatable result, I'd suggest these U.S. elections were a qualified success. A political elite were prevented from foisting an unpopular candidate on an unwilling populace. However inconvenient for them, however incomprehensible for the rest of us, that's the way the votes stack up.
I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible.
It perhaps better understands the reasons Trump won than most places online. And hey, it was the result of democracy working. The "little people" got to shake their fists at the system they despised. When can that be a bad thing?
And some on pb.com maybe look back to Reagan in 1980 and think "they said all this about Reagan then - it's the end of the world! - but that worked out OK."
I think there's understanding why he's won, and there's actively seeming to sympathise with Trump's agenda (like Plato does, for example).
There seems to be this idea that because Trump's victory was a fair and democratic one, somehow you can't have a negative opinion on it. If that's the case, I assume many Conservatives on here have never had negative opinions Labour GE victories? Afterall, it's democracy working
On Regan, was he a racist? Was he a misogynist? If so, I would never compare him with Trump. Even George W Bush is better than Trump.
Tories lose elections to Labour (or at least, did). We don't proclaim the End of All Human Decency as a result. Just knuckle down to overturn it next time....
I think the proclamation of the 'end of all human decency' is more to do with the type of candidate Trump is. If Jeb Bush had been nominated, and won last night I (and probably many others too) wouldn't have seen it as 'the end of the world'.
Also, the world is a lot bigger than 59 million Americans. And views online come from all parts of the world....
So just 59 million Americans and PB, is that your view? For someone who likes to criticise posters here you come across as peculiarly blinkered yourself.
No, that's putting words into my mouth.
You just said "one of the few places". i.e. PB, and those 59 million Americans.
"I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible."
Are you now conceding that perhaps quite a lot of people don't think "a Trump victory is terrible"?
Also, the world is a lot bigger than 59 million Americans. And views online come from all parts of the world....
So just 59 million Americans and PB, is that your view? For someone who likes to criticise posters here you come across as peculiarly blinkered yourself.
No, that's putting words into my mouth.
You just said "one of the few places". i.e. PB, and those 59 million Americans.
"I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible."
Are you now conceding that perhaps quite a lot of people don't think "a Trump victory is terrible"?
Trump needs to kick the special prosecutor nonsense for Hillary into the long grass. Winning and on the platform he did is going to make a lot of enemies, you don't want to be adding this into the mix.
WIll it even be in his power?
He could issue a Presidential pardon?
Yes, I expect so, but I don't think he can initiate an investigation or prosecution. I might be wrong on that, though.
Either way the whole thing should be dropped. It's divisive and serves no purpose. Hillary is finished; the Democratic Party, the liberal elite and the media will instantly discover that they never ever supported her, just as Labour discovered they'd never supported Tony Blair.
I think it gives a sense of the enormity of what's happened that American liberals are now heaping more opprobrium upon Clinton and her underlings than on Donald Trump. This feels unprecedented. I can't remember, say, the Tories being that inflamed about Major in 1997.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
Excerpt: Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.
Edit: I know now is not the time for excerpts...
"He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. ... I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party."
People still don't get it.
Far from running a lousy campaign. Trump ran the only campaign that could win it for him. Just because the author of this piece could not imagine a different way of campaigning does not make it a lousy campaign.
He needed to run against the entire Establishment, including the GOP and political correctness in general, in order to fire up those non-voting white rural populations and win over the disaffected WWC in the Rust Belt. Without both of those two factors, he would have lost, just as Romney lost because he was an elite and so alienated many potential white voters (the 1 million absent white voters).
The Dems did their job - they got out the Dem vote at levels that 'should have' won it for them, but would only have won it for them if Trump had not won over and energized the disaffected white vote.
There's one thing we haven't talked about, how many pissed Clinton Foundation donors are there...
I am sure they gave all those $100 millions out of the goodness of their hearts and because the Clinton's hour speeches are absolutely worth $250k an hour, nothing else.
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.
Russia had a new constitution, with term limits for the president. Putin job-swapped with the Prime Minister, changed the constitution and is now back as president. Putin is the tsar, with the symbols, icons and the church.
Putin did everything by the book constitutionally and his returning as President wasn't dependent on changing the constitution.
I think many people were shocked at the clenched fist, rather than open handshake extended to Russia post-Cold War.
It was a huge mis-step. If Trump can detoxify the situation, all well and good to him. My knowledge of Putin's aspirations are not sufficient to comment on what is currently happening in eg. Ukraine, but jaw-jaw has got to be better than war war.
This is why I just don't get people's perception of 'safe' Hillary. Better behaved? Sure. Preferable invitee to a State banquet? Absolutely. But you can practically hear the bombs being dropped like confetti over unfortunate parts of the world every time she opens her mouth. WW3 just got a shade more unlikely.
"I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible. "
This site likes interesting. That's all it is. The Trump victory is fascinating. He confounded polls and experts, recorded a result better than the vast majority of opinions here, including mine.
I think it gives a sense of the enormity of what's happened that American liberals are now heaping more opprobrium upon Clinton and her underlings than on Donald Trump. This feels unprecedented. I can't remember, say, the Tories being that inflamed about Major in 1997.
This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did.
Excerpt: Choosing her indicated either that Democrats didn’t mean what they said about Trump’s riskiness, that their opportunism took precedence over the country’s well-being, or maybe both.
Edit: I know now is not the time for excerpts...
"He has run one of the lousiest presidential campaigns ever. ... I mean this in a purely technical sense: this man fractured his own party."
People still don't get it.
Far from running a lousy campaign. Trump ran the only campaign that could win it for him. Just because the author of this piece could not imagine a different way of campaigning does not make it a lousy campaign.
He needed to run against the entire Establishment, including the GOP and political correctness in general, in order to fire up those non-voting white rural populations and win over the disaffected WWC in the Rust Belt. Without both of those two factors, he would have lost, just as Romney lost because he was an elite and so alienated many potential white voters (the 1 million absent white voters).
The Dems did their job - they got out the Dem vote at levels that 'should have' won it for them, but would only have won it for them if Trump had not won over and energized the disaffected white vote.
So in this instance, and against every study almost ever, did the non-voters turn out and vote?
All Trump needs to do on Hillary is let Comey do his job, unfettered.
Coney as a Republican has already done his job as far as Trump is concerned, first breaking protocols on unsubstantiated grounds by intervening as early voting started, then making a second announcement three days before the election that served to cover his back while just happening to keep the e-mail issue up front in the headlines up to polling day as Trump wanted. A huge narrowing in the polls coincided with these interventions, which clearly were decisive.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Just as well then that you can come here for a more balanced and representative set of views, assuming you are interested in understanding politics.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
@MaxPB who said social media is representative of real life? PB isn't really representative of real life either, as things go.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Since when has social media been representative of real life, I think PM Ed Miliband is waiting to hear from you on this.
As SeanT commented the other day, PB is a remarkably diverse social and polictical group, with widely differing views and yet appear to not only tolerate these differences in others, but also discuss them in a relatively civilised manner. It must come as a shock to some when they leave their closed circle of friends on social media..
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Your social media might be but mine barely mentions it. Just full of news about sheep farming in the lake district, history, gaming and books, plus the odd bit of news from a cat in Seattle. The same as normal.
Social media is a reflection of one's interests not of the world.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Your social media might be but mine barely mentions it. Just full of news about sheep farming in the lake district, history, gaming and books, plus the odd bit of news from a cat in Seattle. The same as normal.
Social media is a reflection of one's interests not of the world.
Really? Trump and the US Presidental Election is one of the top trends on twitter right now, for example. It's clear that it's something of interest to many people.
Merkel is a fool and she's going to get ousted next year, not by AfD, but because she'll have to go to the Greens or FDP with her begging bowl and they will ask for her head.
Why would they want that, instead of jobs or policy concessions?
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Just as well then that you can come here for a more balanced and representative set of views, assuming you are interested in understanding politics.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't thatright-wing.
@MaxPB who said social media is representative of real life? PB isn't really representative of real life either, as things go.
Given that PB was pretty representative of May 2015 and of June 2016, I think you're wrong. You just don't like that there are people out there who's opinions are different from yours, and have been proven right time and again.
Also given that most people in this website bet and beat the odds time and again also proves you're wrong. The level if insight on PB is head and shoulders above any other UK website or blog. While others were still calling it for Clinton last night all of us were getting on Trump at 6s-11s.
Just because you don't like the conclusions that the PB consensus comes up with, it doesn't make it wrong or unrepresentative.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
It might be a little more centre-right than the country as a whole, but not hugely so. I believe that when Mike has done on-line polls here where people say which party they support, the results have been broadly in line with national figures.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Christ almighty. So were basically at "everyone I follow on Facebook hates him".
No, I didn't say that.
You can gage opinion on sites like Facebook, Twitter outside of people you follow.
You really, really can't. Older voters make up 30% of the electorate and less than 5% of active social media participants. How can anyone get a consensus of what a nation ks thinking when such a huge group is completely unrepresented on a platform?
Your social media might be but mine barely mentions it. Just full of news about sheep farming in the lake district, history, gaming and books, plus the odd bit of news from a cat in Seattle. The same as normal.
More interesting than mine then, which is mainly consumer electronics, news sites, and computer security issues.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
It might be a little more centre-right than the country as a whole, but not hugely so. I believe that when Mike has done on-line polls here where people say which party they support, the results have been broadly in line with national figures.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
When I first started reading PB, it was much more (New) Labour supporting...perhaps the trend to the right has just followed the country as a whole.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Just as well then that you can come here for a more balanced and representative set of views, assuming you are interested in understanding politics.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't thatright-wing.
@MaxPB who said social media is representative of real life? PB isn't really representative of real life either, as things go.
Given that PB was pretty representative of May 2015 and of June 2016, I think you're wrong. You just don't like that there are people out there who's opinions are different from yours, and have been proven right time and again.
Also given that most people in this website bet and beat the odds time and again also proves you're wrong. The level if insight on PB is head and shoulders above any other UK website or blog. While others were still calling it for Clinton last night all of us were getting on Trump at 6s-11s.
Just because you don't like the conclusions that the PB consensus comes up with, it doesn't make it wrong or unrepresentative.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Your social media might be but mine barely mentions it. Just full of news about sheep farming in the lake district, history, gaming and books, plus the odd bit of news from a cat in Seattle. The same as normal.
More interesting than mine then, which is mainly consumer electronics, news sites, and computer security issues.
I have to say I never get any of those dodgy ads when I view PB or the Guardian unlike some....maybe my choice of website reading is really really dull...
Obama got 100% registered voter to vote performance. Hillary got 93% Trump got 104% performance but that was worse than Romney's 106%
Isn't that the story of Hillary's campaign, she couldn't unite Obama's coalition.
Yup, or couldn't turn them out. Hillary was meh, but part of it it just that Obama was an exceedingly strong candidate. The people who came before him couldn't reach a lot of these voters either.
When I first started reading PB, it was much more (New) Labour supporting...perhaps the trend to the right has just followed the country as a whole.
New Labour types are so depressed that, with a couple of exceptions, they don't post much or have drifted off all together. Who can blame them? Discussing politics if you're a centre-left Labour supporter must be very dispiriting at the moment.
Yep. Most of social media is pretty unhappy about Trump's victory, for a start.
Christ almighty. So were basically at "everyone I follow on Facebook hates him".
No, I didn't say that.
You can gage opinion on sites like Facebook, Twitter outside of people you follow.
You really, really can't. Older voters make up 30% of the electorate and less than 5% of active social media participants. How can anyone get a consensus of what a nation ks thinking when such a huge group is completely unrepresented on a platform?
Outside of people you follow online.
I wasn't talking about social media being representative of all the UK's demographics. I never even brought that up....
Social media has always struck me as more left leaning, younger people obviously use it more and they tend to lean left at that age.
In terms of Trump I think it could be a disaster if he genuinely believes in doing some of the stuff that he said he was going to. But a lot of people seem to think he is very chameleon like, came out with a lot of populist policies to get the job but won't go through with them.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Except, politics as we know is the art of the possible. Politicians begin their journey wanting to save the world and provide free owls for all. The reality is that compromises are made from the moment they take office.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
Merkel is a fool and she's going to get ousted next year, not by AfD, but because she'll have to go to the Greens or FDP with her begging bowl and they will ask for her head.
Why would they want that, instead of jobs or policy concessions?
Don't have sufficient Germany-specific knowledge but the general point remains open. Had there been a rainbow coalition in 2010, it's fairly clear that Brown would have had to walk, so this stuff happens.
If you campaign hard against someone (including at a personal level) and you have identified them as yesterday's (wo)man and a tainted brand, it's reasonable to consider:
(1) Can I actually work with this person now? Is it even wise to try? (Particularly if you think there is a kind of personality defect or failing judgment at play.)
(2) Will association with this person tarnish our own brand? Will my voters punish me for getting together with the leader I campaigned against and they were voting against? (I'd suggest this would be super-relevant for the AfD...)
(3) Junior coalition partners are generally perceived as weak. How do I make my mark and prove that I am a strong player in this coalition from the start? The main options are a significant and "ownable" policy concession, a scalp, or both.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Obama got 100% registered voter to vote performance. Hillary got 93% Trump got 104% performance but that was worse than Romney's 106%
Isn't that the story of Hillary's campaign, she couldn't unite Obama's coalition.
Yup, or couldn't turn them out. Hillary was meh, but part of it it just that Obama was an exceedingly strong candidate. The people who came before him couldn't reach a lot of these voters either.
How many pres leave office with 50+% approval rating ?
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Merkel is a fool and she's going to get ousted next year, not by AfD, but because she'll have to go to the Greens or FDP with her begging bowl and they will ask for her head.
Why would they want that, instead of jobs or policy concessions?
Don't have sufficient Germany-specific knowledge but the general point remains open. Had there been a rainbow coalition in 2010, it's fairly clear that Brown would have had to walk, so this stuff happens.
If you campaign hard against someone (including at a personal level) and you have identified them as yesterday's (wo)man and a tainted brand, it's reasonable to consider:
(1) Can I actually work with this person now? Is it even wise to try? (Particularly if you think there is a kind of personality defect or failing judgment at play.)
(2) Will association with this person tarnish our own brand? Will my voters punish me for getting together with the leader I campaigned against and they were voting against? (I'd suggest this would be super-relevant for the AfD...)
(3) Junior coalition partners are generally perceived as weak. How do I make my mark and prove that I am a strong player in this coalition from the start? The main options are a significant and "ownable" policy concession, a scalp, or both.
Well, it works if the incumbent is unpopular, like Gordon Brown. But Angela Merkel is popular.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
Does anyone think he will last the full term? Not sure, there is going to be so much dirt digging. Wouldn't surprise me if the GOP tries to control him more than he likes especially on some of the radical policies.
Perhaps shouldn't be talking about and I don't wish it on anyone but the chances of someone taking a pop at him could be high. Especially if he ends up being as divisive as many fear.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
Obamacare repeal first up, surely.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
Merkel is a fool and she's going to get ousted next year, not by AfD, but because she'll have to go to the Greens or FDP with her begging bowl and they will ask for her head.
Why would they want that, instead of jobs or policy concessions?
Don't have sufficient Germany-specific knowledge but the general point remains open. Had there been a rainbow coalition in 2010, it's fairly clear that Brown would have had to walk, so this stuff happens.
If you campaign hard against someone (including at a personal level) and you have identified them as yesterday's (wo)man and a tainted brand, it's reasonable to consider:
(1) Can I actually work with this person now? Is it even wise to try? (Particularly if you think there is a kind of personality defect or failing judgment at play.)
(2) Will association with this person tarnish our own brand? Will my voters punish me for getting together with the leader I campaigned against and they were voting against? (I'd suggest this would be super-relevant for the AfD...)
(3) Junior coalition partners are generally perceived as weak. How do I make my mark and prove that I am a strong player in this coalition from the start? The main options are a significant and "ownable" policy concession, a scalp, or both.
Well, it works if the incumbent is unpopular, like Gordon Brown. But Angela Merkel is popular.
Is Merkel popular in the sociodemographic niche that AfD is gunning for? I suppose that's just a reiteration of my point (2) really. What would they care about Merkel's popularity among e.g. left-liberal population segments that are open and positive about mass migration - it's not the target market. If their voter base detests the woman, can they afford to betray them?
As PB heads know full well, there's no scalp like the top scalp.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
It might be a little more centre-right than the country as a whole, but not hugely so. I believe that when Mike has done on-line polls here where people say which party they support, the results have been broadly in line with national figures.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
On your first point (from a previous post):
PB's voting intentions are representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative.
Also, I've never commented on the intelligence of Trump and Le Pen supporters, so your assumption there is wrong.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
Those two are incompatible, as natural gas displaces coal!
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
Obamacare repeal first up, surely.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
Question is what is the bigly idea to replace it? There is a genuine problem with US healthcare system and not just among non-insured poor people.
Soooo, is Utah not fully counted yet? If every single uncounted vote is 62% Hillary, 38% McMullin she wins the state and if all other undeclared states go Hilary she wins.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
Those two are incompatible, as natural gas displaces coal!
OK Malcolm if you are still here. I have made the screenshot. I placed several bets over a period of time - it wasn't just one. So I've put three screenshots together, and have blanked out reference numbers. I also had the Cruz/Rubio/Bush/Kaine/Pence/Kasich/Ryan options covered, all at very low prices, so lost those. The absolute best result for me would have been a Pence win. If I recall correctly, the average price I got on Trump was 3.34. Is there a way to send another member here an image?
you can send me a PM and I will be happy to apologise and congratulate you heartily.
OK I've opened up the messaging function, which I've never used before. Can I include an image, or do I have to post it online and include a link?
I don't think you can attach in that messaging - you have to use links.
But you could exchange emails first and then send that way.
OK, I've put it online and sent Malcolm a link. I don't want to exchange emails because would rather remain pseudonymous.
I don't know whether you're reading this, Malcolm, but I have PMed you a link to the screenshots from Betfair that I've put online, haven't heard from you or found any apology - I've searched your comments for one using Vanilla - and am looking forward to getting one.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
The two are mutually exclusive. More fracking drops the gas price, power generators use gas instead of coal and coal demand plummets.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Your last points are strawman arguments. Nowhere have I said social media is representative.
Also, I'd say extreme anti-establishment candidates are in the ascendency as opposed to purely right wing candidates. The isolationist economic policies of Trump and Le Pen are hardly 'right wing'.
Comments
It's not the job of elections to select the "best" government.
It's certainly not the job of elections to select the "best" governments, where "best" is defined by the personal tastes of people living thousands of miles from the fray.
It is the job of elections to ensure government by consent, that the people get a say in who they would prefer to occupy that office, and in return for that right they have to put up with whoever won the democratic mandate. Argue against, protest again, vote against - fine.... but (s)he's your president whichever way you voted.
In that respect, for all the appalling candidates, and the grippingly atrocious campaign, and the internationally unpalatable result, I'd suggest these U.S. elections were a qualified success. A political elite were prevented from foisting an unpopular candidate on an unwilling populace. However inconvenient for them, however incomprehensible for the rest of us, that's the way the votes stack up.
"I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible."
Are you now conceding that perhaps quite a lot of people don't think "a Trump victory is terrible"?
Obama got 100% registered voter to vote performance. Hillary got 93%
Trump got 104% performance but that was worse than Romney's 106%
Either way the whole thing should be dropped. It's divisive and serves no purpose. Hillary is finished; the Democratic Party, the liberal elite and the media will instantly discover that they never ever supported her, just as Labour discovered they'd never supported Tony Blair.
People still don't get it.
Far from running a lousy campaign. Trump ran the only campaign that could win it for him. Just because the author of this piece could not imagine a different way of campaigning does not make it a lousy campaign.
He needed to run against the entire Establishment, including the GOP and political correctness in general, in order to fire up those non-voting white rural populations and win over the disaffected WWC in the Rust Belt. Without both of those two factors, he would have lost, just as Romney lost because he was an elite and so alienated many potential white voters (the 1 million absent white voters).
The Dems did their job - they got out the Dem vote at levels that 'should have' won it for them, but would only have won it for them if Trump had not won over and energized the disaffected white vote.
Only 6 votes in the end though.
"I think PB is probably one of the few places online which doesn't think a Trump victory is terrible. "
This site likes interesting. That's all it is. The Trump victory is fascinating. He confounded polls and experts, recorded a result better than the vast majority of opinions here, including mine.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-announces-run-president
I just read this story....and I dreamt the guy became President. It is June 17th 2015 isn't it?
1,136
1,950
481
279
With Trump's win by 34 in Milford
Hillary ahead by 1510 with only ~6000 votes remaining.
Required Trump swing now at 15.9%.
NOT HAPPENING. Back Hillary at any price.
@MaxPB who said social media is representative of real life? PB isn't really representative of real life either, as things go.
A reminder of what I said on July 31, no hindsight :P
You can gage opinion on sites like Facebook, Twitter outside of people you follow.
Social media is a reflection of one's interests not of the world.
Also given that most people in this website bet and beat the odds time and again also proves you're wrong. The level if insight on PB is head and shoulders above any other UK website or blog. While others were still calling it for Clinton last night all of us were getting on Trump at 6s-11s.
Just because you don't like the conclusions that the PB consensus comes up with, it doesn't make it wrong or unrepresentative.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/cheer-donald-trumps-victory-isnt-doom-gloom/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Lunchtime_Espresso_09112016
The takeaway is that Obama voters went Johnson clearly.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
I wasn't talking about social media being representative of all the UK's demographics. I never even brought that up....
In terms of Trump I think it could be a disaster if he genuinely believes in doing some of the stuff that he said he was going to. But a lot of people seem to think he is very chameleon like, came out with a lot of populist policies to get the job but won't go through with them.
I guess we will find out soon enough.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
But no one can. Not Trump, not Brexit, not Jezza.
If you campaign hard against someone (including at a personal level) and you have identified them as yesterday's (wo)man and a tainted brand, it's reasonable to consider:
(1) Can I actually work with this person now? Is it even wise to try? (Particularly if you think there is a kind of personality defect or failing judgment at play.)
(2) Will association with this person tarnish our own brand? Will my voters punish me for getting together with the leader I campaigned against and they were voting against? (I'd suggest this would be super-relevant for the AfD...)
(3) Junior coalition partners are generally perceived as weak. How do I make my mark and prove that I am a strong player in this coalition from the start? The main options are a significant and "ownable" policy concession, a scalp, or both.
Progressives can be just as contemptuous of those they disagree with.
I've seen remainers use pejorative terms for mentally disabled people on here ('moron, cretin' and even 'retard' )
Given Trump is lower than Romney there is no Trump surge, it is Dem stay home.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Not a single post today???? Nothing, zilch zero nada....
Come on 696 where are you ...speak...post.... Or is an obvious ramper allowed on a betting site?
Perhaps shouldn't be talking about and I don't wish it on anyone but the chances of someone taking a pop at him could be high. Especially if he ends up being as divisive as many fear.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
As PB heads know full well, there's no scalp like the top scalp.
PB's voting intentions are representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative.
Also, I've never commented on the intelligence of Trump and Le Pen supporters, so your assumption there is wrong.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power.
.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account
@realDonaldTrump
President-elect of the United States
She was a fool to concede!
Also, I'd say extreme anti-establishment candidates are in the ascendency as opposed to purely right wing candidates. The isolationist economic policies of Trump and Le Pen are hardly 'right wing'.