Deny people the option of pursuing political change peacefully, by voting, and eventually they will pursue it violently. What conservative would want that?
Indeed. Democracy exists to prevent political argument turning into political violence.
I'm sure Parris knows this but for people like him it's been a VERY traumatic six months... I can understand if the trauma of it all has sent him a bit loopy.
So what would today have been like if Trump had won the popular vote but lost the EC? What would he have been saying in his speech? Inciting people to take to the streets - almost certainly because that's what he was saying prior to the vote even happening.
Trump and people like yourself would have been yelling about a "rigged election" and "the will of the people being frustrated" by the "elite" blah blah blah. The comical thing is you don't even recognise your own hypocrisy.
Considering I've never supported Trump (though I was the first person on PB to say he had a decent chance of being POTUS at the start of 2015) and would probably have voted for Hilary if I had a vote, I'd have been very "relaxed" about the outcome described...
The point is, the people have spoken. You, me and Parris may not like the answer but that's democracy.
Voter turnouts this century for Presidential elections 2008 - 62.2% 2004 - 60.7% 2012 - 58.6% 2016 - 55.8% 2000 - 55.3%
The little people spoke out loudest in 2012 and 2004. This year, not so much.
Still a bit better than I expected to be honest. But all the stories of incredible turnouts on election night always turn out to be mince (with the possible exceptions of Sindy and, more arguably, Brexit).
paddys have a market out on to which state donald trump will make his first state visit. top 5 are:
Evs Russia 6/4 Mexico 4/1 Israel 4/1 Scotland (yes really) 5/1 Canada
I've tried to look at past preseidential visits and for the last 4 presidents it was Canada, Canada, Mexico, Canada (altho the definition of a state visit might need clarifying).
Five dead, sounds pretty bad. Speed limit is 12 mph apparently. I've been round that curve towards New Addington several times, albeit not for a few years.
One man be truly overjoyed this morning, his knowing he will be in work for the next four years:
Alec Baldwin
LOL. When I saw Sarah Palin being interviewed this morning, and the commentators suggesting she might be up for a role, I immediately thought of Tina Fey and the fun she could have for the next four years too.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
This is why she was the wrong candidate. It's pretty clear that this election was won on rustbelt economics.
Not necessarily. If the white working class across the western world decide they need to start voting tribally to protect their interests, there's going to be a big realignment.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Each to their own. I don't really see how it benefits us much even if it is good for the USA, as some believe.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
(((Rob Ford))) @robfordmancs 30m30 minutes ago (((Rob Ford))) Retweeted (((Rob Ford))) If your a Lab MP representing a Northern seat that voted Brexit, those vote patterns should rightly terrify you.
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
worse, what use is identity politics if a chunk of the black electorate wont turn out to vote for a white candidate ?
This inconvenient truth might result in the Dems looking for another black candidate in 2020. Michelle Obama?
A leftwing populist will be the frontrunner, if they are African American too that could be an advantage in the primaries
Liza Warren.
It screams Liza Warren.
If you mean Elizabeth Warren then she'll be 71 by next election.
I thought she was a decade younger than that! Still three years younger than Trump though, and she would probably be the ideal Dem candidate next time.
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
It was the talk over breakfast this morning, in my Chateau. What surprised me was the French I chatted with were quite positive about Trump, as they felt he would be hard on Islamism, radical Muslims, ISIS and terror. This is important in France.
Perhaps they were all Le Pen voters and I got a weird tiny sample. Very possible. But it certainly wasn't the display of Gallic horror I expected.
Overheard snippet as I was passing those poncey food stalls outside King's X station by one of the stallholders:
"It's the same as Brexit: poor people didn't vote for him."
(((Rob Ford))) @robfordmancs 30m30 minutes ago (((Rob Ford))) Retweeted (((Rob Ford))) If your a Lab MP representing a Northern seat that voted Brexit, those vote patterns should rightly terrify you.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
This is why she was the wrong candidate. It's pretty clear that this election was won on rustbelt economics.
Not necessarily. If the white working class across the western world decide they need to start voting tribally to protect their interests, there's going to be a big realignment.
I think the democrats got their candidates the wrong way round. If Hillary had got the nomination instead of Obama I think she'd have won in 2008 and 2012 and Obama would have won yesterday.
Have to publicly apologise to Dromedary for doubting his claim to winning a near six figure sum , having had photographic evidence I have to congratulate him and eat lots of humble pie. A brave man indeed.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
In the end, if I was a Yank, i guess I would have voted for the awful Hillary, out of fear that the lunatic Trump might blow up the world - but boy, am I enjoying the histrionic pant-pissing of the liberal left today.
This AND Brexit. Two enormous, grievous, brutal, bewildering blows against liberal elitism, and PC, and multiculti, and all that dreadful lefty shite in one year. YAY.
and France and Germany next year, with all bets off
Five dead, sounds pretty bad. Speed limit is 12 mph apparently. I've been round that curve towards New Addington several times, albeit not for a few years.
First fatal "rail" incident for a long time IIRC.
Last train passenger killed was at Greyrigg, nine years ago. The one before that was Potter's Bar.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
NYT live forecast going for a Clinton lead of +1.3, which is astonishing - I did suggest here a few times a large chunk of Trump's chances were in winning while losing the popular vote, but never imagined that sort of gap, was thinking 0.25% or the like.
Democrats need to be firing a good chunk of their staff, it's an incredibly inefficient votemap they've managed to produce.
Edit: Nate Cohn just posted ..... "Clinton 63.4m, Trump 61.2m"
Five dead, sounds pretty bad. Speed limit is 12 mph apparently. I've been round that curve towards New Addington several times, albeit not for a few years.
First fatal "rail" incident for a long time IIRC.
Last train passenger killed was at Greyrigg, nine years ago. The one before that was Potter's Bar.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
Never has a US President fallen so short of the media hype, that preceded his election.
It was the talk over breakfast this morning, in my Chateau. What surprised me was the French I chatted with were quite positive about Trump, as they felt he would be hard on Islamism, radical Muslims, ISIS and terror. This is important in France.
Perhaps they were all Le Pen voters and I got a weird tiny sample. Very possible. But it certainly wasn't the display of Gallic horror I expected.
You sound as though you invite people almost unknown to your Chateau!
I imagine you've read Houllebecq's novel 'Submission' ?
paddys have a market out on to which state donald trump will make his first state visit. top 5 are:
Evs Russia 6/4 Mexico 4/1 Israel 4/1 Scotland (yes really) 5/1 Canada
I've tried to look at past preseidential visits and for the last 4 presidents it was Canada, Canada, Mexico, Canada (altho the definition of a state visit might need clarifying).
Canada seems a big price to me at 5's. DYOR
Trump should go to Canada first.
That way he can say Hello to all of the celebrities who said they would leave the country and move there if he won. Of course they all say that and never do.
Heading for Canada today in theory are Barbra Streisand, Bryan Cranston, rape hoaxer Lena Dunham, Neve Campbell, Keegan-Michael Key, Ne-Yo and Raven-Symoné.
Also buggering off today if they stick to their promises should be Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer (Spain), Jon Stewart, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Samuel L Jackson (off to South Africa), Whoopi Goldberg, George Lopez, and "Rev" Al Sharpton.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
Never has a US President fallen so short of the media hype, that preceded his election.
BBC guy just now amazed that RNC guy happy that Republican won.
Green vote was higher than Trump's margin of victory in Michigan and Wisconsin.
If all those Green's had voted Hilary would we have President Clinton now?
It would take Trump below 270. Some states still in doubt.
Although presumably the Gary Johnson vote was higher than the Green vote in both states as well so... (Johnson voters more likely to go Trump than Clinton in a forced choice)
Can we have a minute of rightful and apologetic respect for Plato, who got a terrific kicking and slating on here for her constant cheerleading for Trump and her predictions of Hillary's defeat?
Turns out PLATO WAS RIGHT, AND THE REST OF US WERE WRONG.
So suck it up, PB, and learn to hear the dissenting voice, sometimes they are right, and might even make you money. I understand one Rod Crosby also did very well from last night.
NYT live forecast going for a Clinton lead of +1.3, which is astonishing - I did suggest here a few times a large chunk of Trump's chances were in winning while losing the popular vote, but never imagined that sort of gap, was thinking 0.25% or the like.
Democrats need to be firing a good chunk of their staff, it's an incredibly inefficient votemap they've managed to produce.
Edit: Nate Cohn just posted ..... "Clinton 63.4m, Trump 61.2m"
It's not astonishing because there are still millions of votes to be tabulated in California and Washington. They're famous for being very slow. Last time it took weeks.
Can we have a minute of rightful and apologetic respect for Plato, who got a terrific kicking and slating on here for her constant cheerleading for Trump and her predictions of Hillary's defeat?
Turns out PLATO WAS RIGHT, AND THE REST OF US WERE WRONG.
So suck it up, PB, and learn to hear the dissenting voice, sometimes they are right, and might even make you money. I hear one Rod Crosby also did very well from last night.
I backed Trump but the problem was not Plato's analysis but her indiscriminate posting of anything (and what often seemed like everything) that crossed her twitter feed so often you'd waste time watching videos or clicking through links and using google to discover the latest rumour was nonsense on stilts. At one point she had us analysing fuzzy images of earlobes because a drunk and/or terminally ill Hillary was using body doubles at rallies.
So suck it up, PB, and learn to hear the dissenting voice, sometimes they are right, and might even make you money.
That's true - but do not forget that might, at some point, be true of the left wingers who have been having such a torrid time of late. Even Remoaners.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
Never has a US President fallen so short of the media hype, that preceded his election.
BBC guy just now amazed that RNC guy happy that Republican won.
I think the BBC sent 120 reporters/hangers on etc, to Barry’s inaugural speech. – I’d be surprised if they sent even half that to Trump’s.
Bill in the background I wonder what he's thinking.
"I did not have sex with that woman".
Actually, it was: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Which to older generations was true. What Bill, Monica and the cigar did was heavy petting and that did not count as sex. In an age when contraceptives were at best unreliable, that distinction mattered. To those people, Bill told the truth.
I believe 'the pill' was developed in 1960. In other words: Bollox!
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
This is why she was the wrong candidate. It's pretty clear that this election was won on rustbelt economics.
Not necessarily. If the white working class across the western world decide they need to start voting tribally to protect their interests, there's going to be a big realignment.
I think the democrats got their candidates the wrong way round. If Hillary had got the nomination instead of Obama I think she'd have won in 2008 and 2012 and Obama would have won yesterday.
Obama's a better candidate personally (although he couldn't have deployed his hopey-changey stuff after eight years of Hillary), but all other things being equal I think a black candidate in 2016 would have been an even worse decision. For years Democrats and Republicans looked at the demographics of ethnic minority groups and wondered how best to appeal to them. Then along comes Trump, and asks what happens if you consolidate the white vote. And now he's president-elect.
Morris Dancer is absolutely right: Labour are trying to build an election-winning base off the same mix of middle-class professionals and ethnic minorities as the Democrats. It only works as long as you don't alienate your core voters, and it seems - for better or for worse - as if the genie of ethnocentrism may be starting to escape the bottle. We could be in for a lot more identity politics over the next few decades.
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
worse, what use is identity politics if a chunk of the black electorate wont turn out to vote for a white candidate ?
This inconvenient truth might result in the Dems looking for another black candidate in 2020. Michelle Obama?
A leftwing populist will be the frontrunner, if they are African American too that could be an advantage in the primaries
Liza Warren.
It screams Liza Warren.
If you mean Elizabeth Warren then she'll be 71 by next election.
I thought she was a decade younger than that! Still three years younger than Trump though, and she would probably be the ideal Dem candidate next time.
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
Really? She going to win back the conservative rural white older voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan? Im not so sure? Maybe if there's a recession and millions of jobs are lost by the job creator. As for Gillibrand look up her net worth.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
Never has a US President fallen so short of the media hype, that preceded his election.
BBC guy just now amazed that RNC guy happy that Republican won.
I think the BBC sent 120 reporters/hangers on etc, to Barry’s inaugural speech. – I’d be surprised if they sent even half that to Trump’s.
Which we should surely applaud, since they get criticised for taking too many to such things as it is a waste of money etc.
What they usually do in California is count about 70% of the votes very quickly on the night, and then they take days or even weeks to count the other 30%. It's a bit weird.
Bill in the background I wonder what he's thinking.
"I did not have sex with that woman".
Actually, it was: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Which to older generations was true. What Bill, Monica and the cigar did was heavy petting and that did not count as sex. In an age when contraceptives were at best unreliable, that distinction mattered. To those people, Bill told the truth.
I believe 'the pill' was developed in 1960. In other words: Bollox!
Is it? Or is it still grounds for annulment of marriage by non-consummation?
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
worse, what use is identity politics if a chunk of the black electorate wont turn out to vote for a white candidate ?
This inconvenient truth might result in the Dems looking for another black candidate in 2020. Michelle Obama?
A leftwing populist will be the frontrunner, if they are African American too that could be an advantage in the primaries
Liza Warren.
It screams Liza Warren.
If you mean Elizabeth Warren then she'll be 71 by next election.
I thought she was a decade younger than that! Still three years younger than Trump though, and she would probably be the ideal Dem candidate next time.
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
Really? She going to win back the conservative rural white older voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan? Im not so sure? Maybe if there's a recession and millions of jobs are lost by the job creator. As for Gillibrand look up her net worth.
That way he can say Hello to all of the celebrities who said they would leave the country and move there if he won. Of course they all say that and never do.
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
This is why she was the wrong candidate. It's pretty clear that this election was won on rustbelt economics.
Not necessarily. If the white working class across the western world decide they need to start voting tribally to protect their interests, there's going to be a big realignment.
I think the democrats got their candidates the wrong way round. If Hillary had got the nomination instead of Obama I think she'd have won in 2008 and 2012 and Obama would have won yesterday.
Obama's a better candidate personally (although he couldn't have deployed his hopey-changey stuff after eight years of Hillary), but all other things being equal I think a black candidate in 2016 would have been an even worse decision. For years Democrats and Republicans looked at the demographics of ethnic minority groups and wondered how best to appeal to them. Then along comes Trump, and asks what happens if you consolidate the white vote. And now he's president-elect.
Morris Dancer is absolutely right: Labour are trying to build an election-winning base off the same mix of middle-class professionals and ethnic minorities as the Democrats. It only works as long as you don't alienate your core voters, and it seems - for better or for worse - as if the genie of ethnocentrism may be starting to escape the bottle. We could be in for a lot more identity politics over the next few decades.
Labour aren't trying to build an election-winning anything.
It seems that the national polls will have been pretty accurate this time around. It's just that Trump was absolutely right the election was rigged. As the small rural states are almost universally Republican their over-representation in the Electoral College is probably a bigger bias than exists in our electoral system.
It's not astonishing because there are still millions of votes to be tabulated in California and Washington. They're famous for being very slow. Last time it took weeks.
By astonishing I mean losing fairly comprehensively, despite that % lead. The Gore gap in 2000 was only 0.5%, and the previous time before that (1888!) it was 0.8%.
When Obama won the first time in 2008, we did not have all these tv reports focusing on people that voted for the losing side. What has changed, or was Obama's victory in line with the what tv news reporters wanted to happen?
Never has a US President fallen so short of the media hype, that preceded his election.
BBC guy just now amazed that RNC guy happy that Republican won.
I think the BBC sent 120 reporters/hangers on etc, to Barry’s inaugural speech. – I’d be surprised if they sent even half that to Trump’s.
Which we should surely applaud, since they get criticised for taking too many to such things as it is a waste of money etc.
It was the talk over breakfast this morning, in my Chateau. What surprised me was the French I chatted with were quite positive about Trump, as they felt he would be hard on Islamism, radical Muslims, ISIS and terror. This is important in France.
Perhaps they were all Le Pen voters and I got a weird tiny sample. Very possible. But it certainly wasn't the display of Gallic horror I expected.
You sound as though you invite people almost unknown to your Chateau!
I imagine you've read Houllebecq's novel 'Submission' ?
It wasn't MY Chateau. I was staying in a hotel made from a Chateau.
It was the talk over breakfast this morning, in my Chateau. What surprised me was the French I chatted with were quite positive about Trump, as they felt he would be hard on Islamism, radical Muslims, ISIS and terror. This is important in France.
Perhaps they were all Le Pen voters and I got a weird tiny sample. Very possible. But it certainly wasn't the display of Gallic horror I expected.
Was in Nice today.
Guy I was with - having pedicted Brexit and Trump - is now predicting MLP. Ulp!
Interestingly he also said that Juppe is respected by the French for his corruption case. He didn't make any money personally but took the rap for Chirac and didn't dish the dirt on his boss. French people believe that is a good thing...
paddys have a market out on to which state donald trump will make his first state visit. top 5 are:
Evs Russia 6/4 Mexico 4/1 Israel 4/1 Scotland (yes really) 5/1 Canada
I've tried to look at past preseidential visits and for the last 4 presidents it was Canada, Canada, Mexico, Canada (altho the definition of a state visit might need clarifying).
Canada seems a big price to me at 5's. DYOR
Trump should go to Canada first.
That way he can say Hello to all of the celebrities who said they would leave the country and move there if he won. Of course they all say that and never do.
Heading for Canada today in theory are Barbra Streisand, Bryan Cranston, rape hoaxer Lena Dunham, Neve Campbell, Keegan-Michael Key, Ne-Yo and Raven-Symoné.
Also buggering off today if they stick to their promises should be Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer (Spain), Jon Stewart, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Samuel L Jackson (off to South Africa), Whoopi Goldberg, George Lopez, and "Rev" Al Sharpton.
US presidents always visit Canada first, don't they?
It's not astonishing because there are still millions of votes to be tabulated in California and Washington. They're famous for being very slow. Last time it took weeks.
By astonishing I mean losing fairly comprehensively, despite that % lead. The Gore gap in 2000 was only 0.5%, and the previous time before that (1888!) it was 0.8%.
I agree, it looks like at least a one point lead which would be 1.3 million votes. Clinton piling up useless votes (under this system) in California, New York, Illinois.
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
worse, what use is identity politics if a chunk of the black electorate wont turn out to vote for a white candidate ?
This inconvenient truth might result in the Dems looking for another black candidate in 2020. Michelle Obama?
A leftwing populist will be the frontrunner, if they are African American too that could be an advantage in the primaries
Liza Warren.
It screams Liza Warren.
If you mean Elizabeth Warren then she'll be 71 by next election.
I thought she was a decade younger than that! Still three years younger than Trump though, and she would probably be the ideal Dem candidate next time.
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
Really? She going to win back the conservative rural white older voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan? Im not so sure? Maybe if there's a recession and millions of jobs are lost by the job creator. As for Gillibrand look up her net worth.
It's more about getting Democrats to vote.
I'm still waiting to see whether non-voters voted this time.
Tim (not that one) earlier said yes. I would like to see if it was indeed the case. If it was, it has implications for future election strategy.
What they usually do in California is count about 70% of the votes very quickly on the night, and then they take days or even weeks to count the other 30%. It's a bit weird.
Oh feck am I going to have to wait weeks for my Stein bet to pay out?
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
In the end, if I was a Yank, i guess I would have voted for the awful Hillary, out of fear that the lunatic Trump might blow up the world - but boy, am I enjoying the histrionic pant-pissing of the liberal left today.
This AND Brexit. Two enormous, grievous, brutal, bewildering blows against liberal elitism, and PC, and multiculti, and all that dreadful lefty shite in one year. YAY.
A few hours in and Trump's presidency does not look even remotely threatening. He does deals and will say what he has to in order to get them done. Then he'll happily renege if it suits him. As a result, a lot of what he said during the campaign will be very quickly dropped; while the secret service briefings will keep him honest on foreign affairs, though Israel can expect a lot more overt support and financial backing. Most intriguing, though, is that the right now owns it all in the US and the UK. They have to deliver. There will be no blaming anyone else if they don't. Cosseted as I am from the real world, I am genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
paddys have a market out on to which state donald trump will make his first state visit. top 5 are:
Evs Russia 6/4 Mexico 4/1 Israel 4/1 Scotland (yes really) 5/1 Canada
I've tried to look at past preseidential visits and for the last 4 presidents it was Canada, Canada, Mexico, Canada (altho the definition of a state visit might need clarifying).
Canada seems a big price to me at 5's. DYOR
Trump should go to Canada first.
That way he can say Hello to all of the celebrities who said they would leave the country and move there if he won. Of course they all say that and never do.
Heading for Canada today in theory are Barbra Streisand, Bryan Cranston, rape hoaxer Lena Dunham, Neve Campbell, Keegan-Michael Key, Ne-Yo and Raven-Symoné.
Also buggering off today if they stick to their promises should be Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer (Spain), Jon Stewart, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Samuel L Jackson (off to South Africa), Whoopi Goldberg, George Lopez, and "Rev" Al Sharpton.
US presidents always visit Canada first, don't they?
george W bush visited mexico first, then canada. reagan did mexico then canada but he was still president elect when he went to mexico so I reckon that leaves canada as his first. so that means 4 of last 5 went to canada first and it's a 5/1 shot.
Five dead, sounds pretty bad. Speed limit is 12 mph apparently. I've been round that curve towards New Addington several times, albeit not for a few years.
First fatal "rail" incident for a long time IIRC.
Last train passenger killed was at Greyrigg, nine years ago. The one before that was Potter's Bar.
What they usually do in California is count about 70% of the votes very quickly on the night, and then they take days or even weeks to count the other 30%. It's a bit weird.
Oh feck am I going to have to wait weeks for my Stein bet to pay out?
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
In the end, if I was a Yank, i guess I would have voted for the awful Hillary, out of fear that the lunatic Trump might blow up the world - but boy, am I enjoying the histrionic pant-pissing of the liberal left today.
This AND Brexit. Two enormous, grievous, brutal, bewildering blows against liberal elitism, and PC, and multiculti, and all that dreadful lefty shite in one year. YAY.
Israel can expect a lot more overt support and financial backing.
Invited Netanyahu over as soon as is practicably possible.
She's going on about identity politics, she still doesn't get that people have had their fill of that stuff.
worse, what use is identity politics if a chunk of the black electorate wont turn out to vote for a white candidate ?
This inconvenient truth might result in the Dems looking for another black candidate in 2020. Michelle Obama?
A leftwing populist will be the frontrunner, if they are African American too that could be an advantage in the primaries
Liza Warren.
It screams Liza Warren.
If you mean Elizabeth Warren then she'll be 71 by next election.
I thought she was a decade younger than that! Still three years younger than Trump though, and she would probably be the ideal Dem candidate next time.
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
Really? She going to win back the conservative rural white older voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan? Im not so sure? Maybe if there's a recession and millions of jobs are lost by the job creator. As for Gillibrand look up her net worth.
It's more about getting Democrats to vote.
I'm still waiting to see whether non-voters voted this time.
Tim (not that one) earlier said yes. I would like to see if it was indeed the case. If it was, it has implications for future election strategy.
Given the turnout and the overall vote numbers, if a lot of non-voters did vote a lot of usual voters did not. More likely, non-voters did what they usually do and stayed at home.
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
In the end, if I was a Yank, i guess I would have voted for the awful Hillary, out of fear that the lunatic Trump might blow up the world - but boy, am I enjoying the histrionic pant-pissing of the liberal left today.
This AND Brexit. Two enormous, grievous, brutal, bewildering blows against liberal elitism, and PC, and multiculti, and all that dreadful lefty shite in one year. YAY.
A few hours in and Trumps presidency does not look even remotely threatening. He does deals and will say what he has to in order to get them done. Then he'll happily renege if it suits him. As a result, a lot of what he said during the campaign will be very quickly dropped; while the secret service briefings will keep him honest on foreign affairs, though Israel can expect a lot more overt support and financial backing. Most intriguing, though, is that the right now owns it all in the US and the UK. They have to deliver. There will be no blaming anyone else if they don't. Cosseted as I am from the real world, I am genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
This is why Trump's presidency bothers me a lot less than Brexit (sorry to bring it up, an' all). Here we voted tangibly for economic damage to the country. In the US, they voted for a more or less standard, yes rough round the edges, but otherwise as you said, bog-standard US president who will be constrained quite strongly as to what he can or can't do.
Dunno if this has been posted before, but just found Pollyvote. They're assessing different methodologies, prediction markets, poll aggregators, etc. Econometric models (an average of 18 of them) got closest, with C+0.4% - although they're not very accurate normally. There's a lovely graph comparing the different methods here: http://pollyvote.com/en/combining-forecasts/which-forecasting-method-provides-the-most-accurate-forecasts/
A few hours in and Trumps presidency does not look even remotely threatening. He does deals and will say what he has to in order to get them done. Then he'll happily renege if it suits him. As a result, a lot of what he said during the campaign will be very quickly dropped; while the secret service briefings will keep him honest on foreign affairs, though Israel can expect a lot more overt support and financial backing. Most intriguing, though, is that the right now owns it all in the US and the UK. They have to deliver. There will be no blaming anyone else if they don't. Cosseted as I am from the real world, I am genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
How much interest will he take in actually governing? My guess is - not a lot. It's too much like hard work, it's frustrating because you can't just bully your way through, most of it is detailed boring stuff, and he has no experience of high (or even lowly) office. It is most likely, therefore, that a cabal of associates, or possibly one dominant figure, will gradually move in to fill the power vacuum. How good or bad his presidency is will depend enormously on who those people are.
It's not astonishing because there are still millions of votes to be tabulated in California and Washington. They're famous for being very slow. Last time it took weeks.
By astonishing I mean losing fairly comprehensively, despite that % lead. The Gore gap in 2000 was only 0.5%, and the previous time before that (1888!) it was 0.8%.
I agree, it looks like at least a one point lead which would be 1.3 million votes. Clinton piling up useless votes (under this system) in California, New York, Illinois.
Not entirely the Democrat's fault. It required 81k voters to win Clinton 1EC vote in California., but Trump only needed 41k in Wyoming and similarly Dakotas, Alaska, Montana
I still can't quite believe what happened last night - it's the third all-nighter that's taken many by surprise or at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in.
What a year - and there's so much fun to be had next year with a bunch of Euro elections.
"at least left us pinching ourselves as the good news rolled in."
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
In the end, if I was a Yank, i guess I would have voted for the awful Hillary, out of fear that the lunatic Trump might blow up the world - but boy, am I enjoying the histrionic pant-pissing of the liberal left today.
This AND Brexit. Two enormous, grievous, brutal, bewildering blows against liberal elitism, and PC, and multiculti, and all that dreadful lefty shite in one year. YAY.
A few hours in and Trumps presidency does not look even remotely threatening. He does deals and will say what he has to in order to get them done. Then he'll happily renege if it suits him. As a result, a lot of what he said during the campaign will be very quickly dropped; while the secret service briefings will keep him honest on foreign affairs, though Israel can expect a lot more overt support and financial backing. Most intriguing, though, is that the right now owns it all in the US and the UK. They have to deliver. There will be no blaming anyone else if they don't. Cosseted as I am from the real world, I am genuinely interested to see how it all plays out.
This is why Trump's presidency bothers me a lot less than Brexit (sorry to bring it up, an' all). Here we voted tangibly for economic damage to the country. In the US, they voted for a more or less standard, yes rough round the edges, but otherwise as you said, bog-standard US president who will be constrained quite strongly as to what he can or can't do.
What constitutes a non-bog-standard US president then?
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
Because this give the right-wingers their chance, a natural experiment. Lords of all they survey in Britain and the USA, dominating both houses of Congress, there is nothing in their way.
Trump has made massive promises to improve the lives of the working class. Brexiteers have promised to Take Back Control and transform us into swashbuckling, globe-trotting traders again.
They have no more excuses. No more: "The EU won't let us" "The Lib Dems won't let us" "Congress messed it up" "The Supreme Court blocked it" (OK, they will still have "the badgers moved the goalposts" and "It's the wrong kind of snow", but still...)
Although Clinton won the poorest households (under $30k p.a.) there was a huge swing towards the Republicans in that segment of the US. Similarly, you can see that the Tories and UKIP are taking bigger chunks of the working class than ever before.
If they let them down with recessions, damage to living standards, betrayal, they will be found out. And if they succeed - then progressives can steal their policies and create a SNP-type nationalist, centre-left programme.
Why oh why did Hillary go to Ohio, it wasn't even remotely close but the "leak" I had heard was the Dem internals had it 50/50 when public polls had a Trump win.
This is why I am I treated in their big data operation , did they know this was coming or was it a total failure. Why wasn't she in other razor edge Midwestern states rather than billion point Trump win Ohio?
Comments
Well, politically...
Considering I've never supported Trump (though I was the first person on PB to say he had a decent chance of being POTUS at the start of 2015) and would probably have voted for Hilary if I had a vote, I'd have been very "relaxed" about the outcome described...
The point is, the people have spoken. You, me and Parris may not like the answer but that's democracy.
RAIB have issued a bulletin about today's tram crash:
The derailment occurred on the curve and initial indications suggest that the tram was travelling at a significantly higher speed than is permitted.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fatal-tram-accident-in-croydon
Evs Russia
6/4 Mexico
4/1 Israel
4/1 Scotland (yes really)
5/1 Canada
I've tried to look at past preseidential visits and for the last 4 presidents it was Canada, Canada, Mexico, Canada (altho the definition of a state visit might need clarifying).
Canada seems a big price to me at 5's. DYOR
I only made two big bets, one on Trump to win and the other on Hillary 0-5% win in the pop vote.
It's extraordinary. I know we compared Brexit to Trump and all the factors pointed in the same direction, but I still can't quite believe it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html
That is a healthy thing, renewal of ideas and people is good in politics.
First fatal "rail" incident for a long time IIRC.
What is good about the news?
Oh, I forgot this is loony right-wing blog - apologies!
Who's the younger version of herself, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?
he'll have one hell of a shock when he sobers up
2012 votes: 3,181,067
2016 votes so far: 2,227,263
Clearly a lot more votes to come from LA.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/states/california/president
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2012
The driver being arrested should not be seen as guilt: it's happened before when they've been found blameless.
"It's the same as Brexit: poor people didn't vote for him."
L'elite est mort, vive l'elite.
Trains and planes have got a whole load safer over the past couple of decades.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president/map
NYT live forecast going for a Clinton lead of +1.3, which is astonishing - I did suggest here a few times a large chunk of Trump's chances were in winning while losing the popular vote, but never imagined that sort of gap, was thinking 0.25% or the like.
Democrats need to be firing a good chunk of their staff, it's an incredibly inefficient votemap they've managed to produce.
Edit: Nate Cohn just posted ..... "Clinton 63.4m, Trump 61.2m"
I imagine you've read Houllebecq's novel 'Submission' ?
That way he can say Hello to all of the celebrities who said they would leave the country and move there if he won. Of course they all say that and never do.
Heading for Canada today in theory are Barbra Streisand, Bryan Cranston, rape hoaxer Lena Dunham, Neve Campbell, Keegan-Michael Key, Ne-Yo and Raven-Symoné.
Also buggering off today if they stick to their promises should be Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer (Spain), Jon Stewart, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Samuel L Jackson (off to South Africa), Whoopi Goldberg, George Lopez, and "Rev" Al Sharpton.
Have been wondering about Rod...
Croydon tram: Seven dead and 50 injured after derailment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37919658
Morris Dancer is absolutely right: Labour are trying to build an election-winning base off the same mix of middle-class professionals and ethnic minorities as the Democrats. It only works as long as you don't alienate your core voters, and it seems - for better or for worse - as if the genie of ethnocentrism may be starting to escape the bottle. We could be in for a lot more identity politics over the next few decades.
I had imagined that your well written words (and those, perhaps less so, here) had paid off. Next week then.
You're quite right to send congratulatory words to Plato - she was almost the only voice which predicted this.
Guy I was with - having pedicted Brexit and Trump - is now predicting MLP. Ulp!
Interestingly he also said that Juppe is respected by the French for his corruption case. He didn't make any money personally but took the rap for Chirac and didn't dish the dirt on his boss. French people believe that is a good thing...
Tim (not that one) earlier said yes. I would like to see if it was indeed the case. If it was, it has implications for future election strategy.
Trump, latest figure: 47.48%
http://pollyvote.com/en/combining-forecasts/which-forecasting-method-provides-the-most-accurate-forecasts/
You have to admit you're on poor ground!
Why?
Because this give the right-wingers their chance, a natural experiment.
Lords of all they survey in Britain and the USA, dominating both houses of Congress, there is nothing in their way.
Trump has made massive promises to improve the lives of the working class. Brexiteers have promised to Take Back Control and transform us into swashbuckling, globe-trotting traders again.
They have no more excuses. No more:
"The EU won't let us"
"The Lib Dems won't let us"
"Congress messed it up"
"The Supreme Court blocked it"
(OK, they will still have "the badgers moved the goalposts" and "It's the wrong kind of snow", but still...)
Although Clinton won the poorest households (under $30k p.a.) there was a huge swing towards the Republicans in that segment of the US. Similarly, you can see that the Tories and UKIP are taking bigger chunks of the working class than ever before.
If they let them down with recessions, damage to living standards, betrayal, they will be found out. And if they succeed - then progressives can steal their policies and create a SNP-type nationalist, centre-left programme.
This is why I am I treated in their big data operation , did they know this was coming or was it a total failure. Why wasn't she in other razor edge Midwestern states rather than billion point Trump win Ohio?