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.
Wow, fair play to Mr @Dromedary, that's a very good night indeed. Chapeau.
Now who were those betting £100k sums on H at 1/4 and 1/5 that were reported on here over the past few days? They must be nursing very large hangovers today!
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.
I doubt there will be a power vacuum - he will be very much in charge even if he delegates every operational detail. One lesson we learnt from the way he ran his campaign is that he will fire people when they cease to perform the role he needs them to.
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 you call yourself a Londoner? You'll be more at home in Scunthorpe methinks - lots of people there who think like 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!
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.
I didn't see your post before I wrote mine. It's been brewing in my mind for some time.
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.
I do d Pence a far more horrifying figure than the caricature of Trump that has been the election bogeyman.
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.
Yes Obamas coalition of young voters stayed at home for Clinton. This is not a wave, if they both got fewer votes.
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.
I have been saying for months that he's a libertine New York billionaire and he will behave like one in office. He won't do anything scary to big business. He will be much less monstrous than most expect.
He will be isolationist in foreign policy, he will be friendly to Britain, he probably won't build a wall.
He will however be very tough on immigration and race. He knows that white populism put him in office...
"immigration and race" - what do you mean? Deport people of colour?
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?
You have to admit you're on poor ground!
I think that's my point. I suppose Reagan is the usual example - cowboy, crazy guy, etc. Turned out a sensible, successful POTUS.
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.
I doubt there will be a power vacuum - he will be very much in charge even if he delegates every operational detail. One lesson we learnt from the way he ran his campaign is that he will fire people when they cease to perform the role he needs them to.
Remember Kasich claimed that when Trump offered him the VP, and Kasich asked what responsibilities he would have as Veep, Trump said he'd be running foreign and domestic policy. Kasich asked what Trump would be doing - "Making America Great Again"
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.
Yep, it's the right's game now. They are in charge. Let's see what happens.
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?
WI, OH, MI, PA and IA are states that Biden or Bernie wouldn't have given up. Clinton was the wrong candidate, all the data and all the billions of campaign money wouldn't have polished the turd.
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.
I doubt there will be a power vacuum - he will be very much in charge even if he delegates every operational detail. One lesson we learnt from the way he ran his campaign is that he will fire people when they cease to perform the role he needs them to.
Remember Kasich claimed that when Trump offered him the VP, and Kasich asked what responsibilities he would have as Veep, Trump said he'd be running foreign and domestic policy. Kasich asked what Trump would be doing - "Making America Great Again"
I think that story as told wasn't that Trump himself made that claim but one of Trump's team approached Kasich. Even then I doubt its veracity.
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
Believing people will accept being poor is the first stop on the road to electoral defeat. They won't. Margaret Thatcher made people richer. That's why she won.
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.
Clinton is currently 0.2% ahead on the popular vote, a gap which will grow a lot when California finally sorts itself out. Whatever the final margin is, she would have needed to be a further 1.3% ahead on a uniform swing in order to have held on to all of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennysylvania and thus just win the electoral college. So, if you are right, and the final popular vote will be at least a 1% lead for Clinton, then Clinton would have had to be 2.3% ahead on the popular vote to have become president.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
There was a time not that long ago, that it seemed like the Right would never be trusted with the economy again after their record of boom and bust.
Different politicians came on the scene, adopting the language of New Labour, and the toxicity dissipated. The same can happen with the immigration issue over time, once the hysteria dies down.
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 a consequence of the fact that every state gets 2 EC votes for their two senators. The remaining EC votes are equivalent to the number of districts (Maine has 2 and Nebraska 3, for instance). Districts are supposed to be roughly equally populated.
We could implement such a system quite easily - split the UK into 50 areas of 12 voting constituencies and hey presto HoC and HoL.
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
The left got itself in a position of being the establishment and never adjusted. It got fat and lazy, comfortable in a gilded bubble of it's own making.
We need to remember how hard it was to establish that position in the first place and get to work.
Nationalism and protectionism may be fashionable solutions today, but there is nothing inevitable about it. They didn't work before.
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.
There was a quote when he was looking at VP picks, something along the lines of "The VP is very important. He'll be in charge of all domestic policy and all foreign policy". When the reporter asked, so what would Trump be in charge of as president, he replied "Making America Great Again!"
One suspects that he'll be one of those annoying executive chairman types, who leaves those under him alone for 95% of the time, but the other 5% he's all over them micromanaging every detail, before disappearing again for the 95% time.
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.
I have been saying for months that he's a libertine New York billionaire and he will behave like one in office. He won't do anything scary to big business. He will be much less monstrous than most expect.
He will be isolationist in foreign policy, he will be friendly to Britain, he probably won't build a wall.
He will however be very tough on immigration and race. He knows that white populism put him in office...
"immigration and race" - what do you mean? Deport people of colour?
Not deportations, but fewer importations. I do expect severe restrictions on Muslim migration, via some vetting process. He will come down hard on the Black Lives Matter riots. I think people underestimate how much those riots, and images of black lawlessness, came at just the right time for Trump's campaign.
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.
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 National polls will wind up being **more accurate** than they were in 2012: 2012: Obama up 1, won by 4 2014: Clinton up 3-4, will win by 1-2
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.
Clinton is currently 0.2% ahead on the popular vote, a gap which will grow a lot when California finally sorts itself out. Whatever the final margin is, she would have needed to be a further 1.3% ahead on a uniform swing in order to have held on to all of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennysylvania and thus just win the electoral college. So, if you are right, and the final popular vote will be at least a 1% lead for Clinton, then Clinton would have had to be 2.3% ahead on the popular vote to have become president.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
The Tories increased their votes by 1% from 2010 and won 28 extra seats, Labour increased their vote by 2% on 2010 and lost 30 seats. Any representative democracy will have its quirks. It's up to Clinton to get nationwide appeal, she was completely and utterly lacking across the Blue rust belt.
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 you call yourself a Londoner? You'll be more at home in Scunthorpe methinks - lots of people there who think like you...
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.
Clinton is currently 0.2% ahead on the popular vote, a gap which will grow a lot when California finally sorts itself out. Whatever the final margin is, she would have needed to be a further 1.3% ahead on a uniform swing in order to have held on to all of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennysylvania and thus just win the electoral college. So, if you are right, and the final popular vote will be at least a 1% lead for Clinton, then Clinton would have had to be 2.3% ahead on the popular vote to have become president.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
The Tories increased their votes by 1% from 2010 and won 28 extra seats, Labour increased their vote by 2% on 2010 and lost 30 seats. Any representative democracy will have its quirks. It's up to Clinton to get nationwide appeal, she was completely and utterly lacking across the Blue rust belt.
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
It's more complex than poor whites being a scorned minority. I have a friend who works in education and he thinks 95% of the problem stems from educational aspiration. It just doesn't exist among the WWC - compare and contrast against the immigrant working class where education is pushed and delivered to stunning effect. I agree that the WWC needs help but it's a two way street, they need to acknowledge wanting the help.. The education system in this country may not be great but it's not terrible - most of the failure sadly comes from a lack of aspiration and parental involvement.
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.
Yep, it's the right's game now. They are in charge. Let's see what happens.
There is at least that silver lining in the US, with the prospect of a rebound in style if all of those expectations are dashed. A Democratic president and majorities in both houses in 2020. Over here, I can't share your optimism. Such is the state of our opposition parties that the Conservatives could completely feck things up (once again) and yet would still be odds on for a big majority in 2020 or earlier.
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?
You have to admit you're on poor ground!
I think that's my point. I suppose Reagan is the usual example - cowboy, crazy guy, etc. Turned out a sensible, successful POTUS.
Trump is definitely not anything we'd expect. Reagan was - he was really mainstream in most ways. I hope that there is some similarity, but I suspect little.
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.
Clinton is currently 0.2% ahead on the popular vote, a gap which will grow a lot when California finally sorts itself out. Whatever the final margin is, she would have needed to be a further 1.3% ahead on a uniform swing in order to have held on to all of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennysylvania and thus just win the electoral college. So, if you are right, and the final popular vote will be at least a 1% lead for Clinton, then Clinton would have had to be 2.3% ahead on the popular vote to have become president.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
The Tories increased their votes by 1% from 2010 and won 28 extra seats, Labour increased their vote by 2% on 2010 and lost 30 seats. Any representative democracy will have its quirks. It's up to Clinton to get nationwide appeal, she was completely and utterly lacking across the Blue rust belt.
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?
You have to admit you're on poor ground!
I think that's my point. I suppose Reagan is the usual example - cowboy, crazy guy, etc. Turned out a sensible, successful POTUS.
Trump is definitely not anything we'd expect. Reagan was - he was really mainstream in most ways. I hope that there is some similarity, but I suspect little.
Reagan had been gov. of California and a leading light of right wing policy and had tried more than once for the presidency.
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
B
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
Believing people will accept being poor is the first stop on the road to electoral defeat. They won't. Margaret Thatcher made people richer. That's why she won.
No they will accept being poor if there is a slight chance of betterment for their kids. But if they are poor they will cling to another source of pride: identity, race, patriotism. The Left wants to take this away from them AS WELL
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of economics in there from my reading. Basically, a lot of white people are not doing as well as they once were and they are angry about it. They blame the left currently (or the metropolitan elite) because that's who has been in charge. But they no longer are in charge. That's the whole point. The right owns it now and has promised solutions. Let's see if they work.
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?
You have to admit you're on poor ground!
I think that's my point. I suppose Reagan is the usual example - cowboy, crazy guy, etc. Turned out a sensible, successful POTUS.
Trump is definitely not anything we'd expect. Reagan was - he was really mainstream in most ways. I hope that there is some similarity, but I suspect little.
Reagan had been gov. of California and a leading light of right wing policy and had tried more than once for the presidency.
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.
Clinton is currently 0.2% ahead on the popular vote, a gap which will grow a lot when California finally sorts itself out. Whatever the final margin is, she would have needed to be a further 1.3% ahead on a uniform swing in order to have held on to all of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennysylvania and thus just win the electoral college. So, if you are right, and the final popular vote will be at least a 1% lead for Clinton, then Clinton would have had to be 2.3% ahead on the popular vote to have become president.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
The Tories increased their votes by 1% from 2010 and won 28 extra seats, Labour increased their vote by 2% on 2010 and lost 30 seats. Any representative democracy will have its quirks. It's up to Clinton to get nationwide appeal, she was completely and utterly lacking across the Blue rust belt.
The difference with the UK is that here at least (to date, with the exception of I think 1951) the party with the most votes still comes away with the spoils. It's now becoming the pattern in the US for that often not to be the case, twice in the last five presidential elections.
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
Becausey succeed - then progressives can steal their policies and create a SNP-type nationalist, centre-left programme.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
There was a time not that long ago, that it seemed like the Right would never be trusted with the economy again after their record of boom and bust.
Different politicians came on the scene, adopting the language of New Labour, and the toxicity dissipated. The same can happen with the immigration issue over time, once the hysteria dies down.
Delusional. Totally delusional. It's not "hysteria". Europe is seeing an unprecedented wave of migration, and for the first time, also, a kind of migrant - conservative Muslims - who hold entirely alien beliefs and refuse to assimilate.
And there is no sign of this stopping.
And it won't stop with the policies likely to be followed by May and Trump.
Since you mentioned the Governorship of California, Trump's experience makes him 100 times more prepared for the Presidency than Arnie was for that job.
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.
Yep, it's the right's game now. They are in charge. Let's see what happens.
There is at least that silver lining in the US, with the prospect of a rebound in style if all of those expectations are dashed. A Democratic president and majorities in both houses in 2020. Over here, I can't share your optimism. Such is the state of our opposition parties that the Conservatives could completely feck things up (once again) and yet would still be odds on for a big majority in 2020 or earlier.
Yep. I agree. We won't have a sniff of a Labour government again until Labour party members begin to need one and fear the Tory alternative. As I have said on here many times, I think that is likely to happen in a couple of years when the theory of Jeremy's unique appeal and all round holiness has been tested to destruction.
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 was basing my statement on various analyses on NBC last night about how Trump won FL, MI, WI and PA. The statement was made several times in relation to specific postal codes that the Trump operation racked up huge numbers relative to expectations, e.g. in the suburbs and exurbs of St Petersburg, whereas the non-Hispanic minorities turnout was somewhat depressed.
That to me implied that there was a degree of churn. Some 2012 voters stayed away and Trump got some new voters and turned some previously Dem voters (disenchanted WWC). However, having had a chance to look at the numbers, it does not seem that there was a big uptick of voting from previous non-voters unless there was a huge fall off in previous voters.
Since you mentioned the Governorship of California, Trump's experience makes him 100 times more prepared for the Presidency than Arnie was for that job.
So what? The point is that the comparison between Trump and Reagan is bogus. Reagan had depth and knew his stuff. A totally different league.
Have you heard his "A Time for Choosing" Goldwater speech?
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.
NYT predicts Clinton to win popular vote by 1.3 points. That would be about 1.7 million votes.
Looking good for my turnout bet then, although from the sound of things it is going to take a few days to have the final tally to Mr @Shadsy's satisfaction.
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
B
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
Believing people will accept being poor is the first stop on the road to electoral defeat. They won't. Margaret Thatcher made people richer. That's why she won.
No they will accept being poor if there is a slight chance of betterment for their kids. But if they are poor they will cling to another source of pride: identity, race, patriotism. The Left wants to take this away from them AS WELL
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of economics in there from my reading. Basically, a lot of white people are not doing as well as they once were and they are angry about it. They blame the left currently (or the metropolitan elite) because that's who has been in charge. But they no longer are in charge. That's the whole point. The right owns it now and has promised solutions. Let's see if they work.
If votes are based more on values than on policies and outcomes, then 'failure' to deliver economically may not result in desertion of the disaffected.
Now, if they voted on emotion and sentiment, then I believe that would be a fragile voter base.
"..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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
It's more complex than poor whites being a scorned minority. I have a friend who works in education and he thinks 95% of the problem stems from educational aspiration. It just doesn't exist among the WWC - compare and contrast against the immigrant working class where education is pushed and delivered to stunning effect. I agree that the WWC needs help but it's a two way street, they need to acknowledge wanting the help.. The education system in this country may not be great but it's not terrible - most of the failure sadly comes from a lack of aspiration and parental involvement."
I agree with this. There's no culture of education amongst working class/poorer white communities, all across the Western hemisphere. Most of those communities in Britain vote, or voted Labour, because they thought they were their voice. That is simply no longer the truth. Working class white communities are at best seen as an inconvenience to manipulate during elections, at worst as an abhorrence. There will be a reckoning, and a very profound shock for Labour, especially if UKIP get their act together. Who will an average white man, or woman, living on a council estate in Newcastle, or Mersyside, or anywhere else for that matter (perhaps not London) vote for - Paul Nuttall, or pro mass immigration, open border, pro Islam Jeremy Corbyn?
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
B
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
Believing people will accept being poor is the first stop on the road to electoral defeat. They won't. Margaret Thatcher made people richer. That's why she won.
No they will accept being poor if there is a slight chance of betterment for their kids. But if they are poor they will cling to another source of pride: identity, race, patriotism. The Left wants to take this away from them AS WELL
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of economics in there from my reading. Basically, a lot of white people are not doing as well as they once were and they are angry about it. They blame the left currently (or the metropolitan elite) because that's who has been in charge. But they no longer are in charge. That's the whole point. The right owns it now and has promised solutions. Let's see if they work.
If votes are based more on values than on policies and outcomes, then 'failure' to deliver economically may not result in desertion of the disaffected.
Now, if they voted on emotion and sentiment, then I believe that would be a fragile voter base.
It's the economy, stupid. If a lot of ordinary people did not feel left behind - ie, not as prosperous as they were before - then we would not be where we are now.
I agree with this. There's no culture of education amongst working class/poorer white communities, all across the Western hemisphere. Most of those communities in Britain vote, or voted Labour, because they thought they were their voice. That is simply no longer the truth. Working class white communities are at best seen as an inconvenience to manipulate during elections, at worst as an abhorrence. There will be a reckoning, and a very profound shock for Labour, especially if UKIP get their act together. Who will an average white man, or woman, living on a council estate in Newcastle, or Mersyside, or anywhere else for that matter (perhaps not London) vote for - Paul Nuttall, or pro mass immigration, open border, pro Islam Jeremy Corbyn?
The left is completely incapable of addressing multicultural issues because it would mean having to repudiate identity politics. If the Dems and Labour want to become the party of liberal elites and migrants then the right will play the same game and take up the cause if the white WWC.
Jon Snow Dealers on the floor of the New York stock exchange greet. Clinton's concession speech with cries of "Lock her up, Lock her up"....
When bankers and traders seriously screw up, they have to spend time in the clink. Why should others get away with a lot worse and still have their freedom?
I am reconciled to Trump now with the proviso that we don't see war.
Why?
B
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
Believing people will accept being poor is the first stop on the road to electoral defeat. They won't. Margaret Thatcher made people richer. That's why she won.
No they will accept being poor if there is a slight chance of betterment for their kids. But if they are poor they will cling to another source of pride: identity, race, patriotism. The Left wants to take this away from them AS WELL
Interesting. There seems to be a lot of economics in there from my reading. Basically, a lot of white people are not doing as well as they once were and they are angry about it. They blame the left currently (or the metropolitan elite) because that's who has been in charge. But they no longer are in charge. That's the whole point. The right owns it now and has promised solutions. Let's see if they work.
If votes are based more on values than on policies and outcomes, then 'failure' to deliver economically may not result in desertion of the disaffected.
Now, if they voted on emotion and sentiment, then I believe that would be a fragile voter base.
It's the economy, stupid. If a lot of ordinary people did not feel left behind - ie, not as prosperous as they were before - then we would not be where we are now.
It's not just the economy. Personally, I suspect the Internet is playing a part.
One thought on the GOP's Senate performance. They have lost two seats - Kirk's indefensible seat in Illinois and Ayote's (by some 700 votes) in NH/ This is truly extraordinarily good outcome for the GOP, given that this is the class of 2010 which rode the crest of the amazing wave election.
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
To be honest the left have to take some responsibility for what has been happening over the last few years. Complacency and smugness has come back to bite them on the backside.
What is at risk with a Trump presidency - is the Paris Climate Agreement in jeopardy for example? - something that the world has painstakingly come together on. I would be desperately sad if we regress in this area (and I know this will not resonate with many on here).
"Almost half of the adults in 12 European countries now hold anti-immigrant, nationalist views, according to major new research that reveals the spread of fringe political views into the mainstream.
In Britain, the poll found authoritarian populist attitudes were shared by 48% of adults, despite less than 20% of the population identifying itself as right-wing. In France, a clear majority of people surveyed – 63% – held authoritarian populist views, while in Italy the figure was 47%. In Germany, it was 18%, which appears low by comparison but, given the country’s history and the extreme nature of its far-right groups, is regarded by analysts as surprisingly high. The highest levels of authoritarian populist views were recorded in Romania and Poland, where they were held by 82% and 78% of adults respectively."
It's the economy, stupid. If a lot of ordinary people did not feel left behind - ie, not as prosperous as they were before - then we would not be where we are now.
I am beginning to wonder if it really is as simple as 'it's the economy, stupid'.
The truly poor in the US probably don't vote much. The 'poorer' people actually have most of their physiological needs well met - housing, food, warmth, (and health if they're younger and don't need healthcare). So the pure monetary aspects of the economy are not as strong motivators as for those in actual poverty. At that point, concepts of equity are probably more important than actual economic performance.
The sense I get hearing some of the disaffected Trump voters speak is that it is not the absolute level of their income that angers them, but the sense of being left behind. Thus how they are engaged may be more important to their future voting than actual economic performance.
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
My wife asked me "Isn't it sexist to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman?"
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
Also Hillary is married to an alleged rapist, pedophile and confirmed adulterer and womaniser, a man she stoutly defended while denigrating his victims. She was unable to play the feminist card with any brio or conviction.
You must have been shocked when you woke up, I think you went to bed when several people were saying Clinton was a shoe-in.
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
Also Hillary is married to an alleged rapist, pedophile and confirmed adulterer and womaniser, a man she stoutly defended while denigrating his victims. She was unable to play the feminist card with any brio or conviction.
You must have been shocked when you woke up, I think you went to bed when several people were saying Clinton was a shoe-in.
And I lumped £1.5k on her... 2016 has not been kind to me betting wise. Although my investments are up massively so more than make up for it.
William Crawley Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
That's brilliant, showing the amount of planning that goes in to the transition process. Contrast with the UK election, where it all happens the day after the vote, although with some CS support for opposition parties during the election process.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
Paul Joseph Watson Yale Professor Cancels Exam for Snowflake Students Distraught at Election Result. https://t.co/EK8It0a2re
Plato, to paraphrase Josh Lynam today you drink from the keg of glory. Hope you've been enjoying the #HesNotMyPresident wailing on Twitter. (Apologies if anyone has already used the West Wing quote)
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
My wife asked me "Isn't it sexist to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman?"
I've been tweeted nude modelling shots of Melania by angry HillBullies - charming. Trying to slut shame the next FLOTUS.
William Crawley Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
That's brilliant, showing the amount of planning that goes in to the transition process. Contrast with the UK election, where it all happens the day after the vote, although with some CS support for opposition parties during the election process.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
There are meetings with civil servants and opposition ministers in the run up to an election in the UK.
Just listen to the condescension in Jon Snow's voice when he said Trump had attracted more white voters, as though somehow that was intolerable to polite society. In his warped world view, appealing to white voters is dog whistle xenophobia. Christ, these liberal lefty elitists are hell bent on self immolation.
William Crawley Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
That's brilliant, showing the amount of planning that goes in to the transition process. Contrast with the UK election, where it all happens the day after the vote, although with some CS support for opposition parties during the election process.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
I did wonder how long a Corbyn reshuffle would take there
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
If you can't appeal to enough States to win, it is your fault. Democrats have won Statewide contests in most small rural States in recent times.
William Crawley Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
That's brilliant, showing the amount of planning that goes in to the transition process. Contrast with the UK election, where it all happens the day after the vote, although with some CS support for opposition parties during the election process.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
There are meetings with civil servants and opposition ministers in the run up to an election in the UK.
Sorry, you mentioned that. Am tired!
We are all tired now I think. I'm awake for 20 hours now after four hours' sleep, and spending most of tomorrow on a plane back to Blighty. I don't know when to drink coffee and when to drink vodka!
C4 News Foreign Editor Lindsey Hilsum "diplomats are saying this could be the end of the West as we know it". C4 News then cut to more nonsense from the European mainland and comment that its the anniversary of kristallnacht.
its the end of the world as we know it.... File under WTF.
Just listen to the condescension in Jon Snow's voice when he said Trump had attracted more white voters, as though somehow that was intolerable to polite society. In his warped world view, appealing to white voters is dog whistle xenophobia. Christ, these liberal lefty elitists are hell bent on self immolation.
William Crawley Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
That's brilliant, showing the amount of planning that goes in to the transition process. Contrast with the UK election, where it all happens the day after the vote, although with some CS support for opposition parties during the election process.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
4,100 Presidential appointees? Jeez - just how big is Trump's family??
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
Also Hillary is married to an alleged rapist, pedophile and confirmed adulterer and womaniser, a man she stoutly defended while denigrating his victims. She was unable to play the feminist card with any brio or conviction.
You must have been shocked when you woke up, I think you went to bed when several people were saying Clinton was a shoe-in.
I laughed out loud when i woke up and saw the headline. And then I sang in the shower, literally. I was surprised by how much his election delighted me. It still does.
It's not that I like him, it's more my detestation of the smug Guardianista liberal left. I am revelling in their rout. They've had it coming for decades. Fuck them. They are despicable. I hope they all crash their hybrid cars from apoplexy at the result.
Sod the left. How do you feel about the right who detest Trump? Republican congressmen and ex-presidents who refused to endorse the Donald? Isn't their humiliation a tad worse?
C4 News Foreign Editor Lindsey Hilsum "diplomats are saying this could be the end of the West as we know it". C4 News then cut to more nonsense from the European mainland and comment that its the anniversary of kristallnacht.
its the end of the world as we know it.... File under WTF.
Wait, I thought that Brexit was the end of Western Civilization?
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
My wife asked me "Isn't it sexist to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman?"
I've been tweeted nude modelling shots of Melania by angry HillBullies - charming. Trying to slut shame the next FLOTUS.
There was a time when public nudity was more associated with liberalism, liberation and feminism - and hence acceptable, even praiseworthy, to the liberals - than conservatism and prudishness.
C4 News Foreign Editor Lindsey Hilsum "diplomats are saying this could be the end of the West as we know it". C4 News then cut to more nonsense from the European mainland and comment that its the anniversary of kristallnacht.
its the end of the world as we know it.... File under WTF.
I thought that was supposed to be caused by Brexit?
It was noticeable that Donald Trump didn't have a single "celebrity" endorsement. Hopefully they will get the message now and take their inflated egos and stay out of politics.
Comments
Now who were those betting £100k sums on H at 1/4 and 1/5 that were reported on here over the past few days? They must be nursing very large hangovers today!
"Professor who predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly called a Trump win in September"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/
This is not a wave, if they both got fewer votes.
Remind me who was it that said that the system is rigged against them?
Different politicians came on the scene, adopting the language of New Labour, and the toxicity dissipated. The same can happen with the immigration issue over time, once the hysteria dies down.
We could implement such a system quite easily - split the UK into 50 areas of 12 voting constituencies and hey presto HoC and HoL.
We need to remember how hard it was to establish that position in the first place and get to work.
Nationalism and protectionism may be fashionable solutions today, but there is nothing inevitable about it. They didn't work before.
One suspects that he'll be one of those annoying executive chairman types, who leaves those under him alone for 95% of the time, but the other 5% he's all over them micromanaging every detail, before disappearing again for the 95% time.
Humble pie and neeps?
National polls will wind up being **more accurate** than they were in 2012:
2012: Obama up 1, won by 4
2014: Clinton up 3-4, will win by 1-2
No to AV: 68%
Yes to AV: 32%
When he finally got the job, he knew the ropes.
Trump knows sweet FA in comparison.
http://tinyurl.com/am2t7kj
Shit, I hadn't realised it was going to be that bad.
Blair was a lawyer and had about 10 years at the top of UK politics before he got the job. Cameron equally had first hand experience.
Trump is a genuine novice.
That to me implied that there was a degree of churn. Some 2012 voters stayed away and Trump got some new voters and turned some previously Dem voters (disenchanted WWC). However, having had a chance to look at the numbers, it does not seem that there was a big uptick of voting from previous non-voters unless there was a huge fall off in previous voters.
Ballots Counted Counted Eligible Voting-Age
2012 58.6% 130,292,355 222,474,111 240,957,993
2016 55.6% 128,843,000 231,556,622 251,107,404
No doubt this will be analyzed in great detail once all the data is out, county by county.
Have you heard his "A Time for Choosing" Goldwater speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
Yale Professor Cancels Exam for Snowflake Students Distraught at Election Result. https://t.co/EK8It0a2re
Now, if they voted on emotion and sentiment, then I believe that would be a fragile voter base.
he's just got different experience only time will tell if thats good or bad
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.
Not unless the left can bring themselves to address immigration, race, identity and the failure of multiculturalism. And I don't see how the Left will ever do that. Not as things stand
And until the Left grasps these issues, they will keep losing, again and again. We are seeing a secular shift against mass migration and against multiculturalism. Poor whites can accept being poor but they won't accept being a scorned minority in their own country.
It's more complex than poor whites being a scorned minority. I have a friend who works in education and he thinks 95% of the problem stems from educational aspiration. It just doesn't exist among the WWC - compare and contrast against the immigrant working class where education is pushed and delivered to stunning effect. I agree that the WWC needs help but it's a two way street, they need to acknowledge wanting the help.. The education system in this country may not be great but it's not terrible - most of the failure sadly comes from a lack of aspiration and parental involvement."
I agree with this. There's no culture of education amongst working class/poorer white communities, all across the Western hemisphere. Most of those communities in Britain vote, or voted Labour, because they thought they were their voice. That is simply no longer the truth. Working class white communities are at best seen as an inconvenience to manipulate during elections, at worst as an abhorrence. There will be a reckoning, and a very profound shock for Labour, especially if UKIP get their act together. Who will an average white man, or woman, living on a council estate in Newcastle, or Mersyside, or anywhere else for that matter (perhaps not London) vote for - Paul Nuttall, or pro mass immigration, open border, pro Islam Jeremy Corbyn?
Dealers on the floor of the New York stock exchange greet. Clinton's concession speech with cries of "Lock her up, Lock her up"....
twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/796221237265649664
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/trump-polling-data/
Election nerds will Iove this -- the official guide to presidential transition. https://t.co/gE97Avjw3Y
What is at risk with a Trump presidency - is the Paris Climate Agreement in jeopardy for example? - something that the world has painstakingly come together on. I would be desperately sad if we regress in this area (and I know this will not resonate with many on here).
In Britain, the poll found authoritarian populist attitudes were shared by 48% of adults, despite less than 20% of the population identifying itself as right-wing.
In France, a clear majority of people surveyed – 63% – held authoritarian populist views, while in Italy the figure was 47%. In Germany, it was 18%, which appears low by comparison but, given the country’s history and the extreme nature of its far-right groups, is regarded by analysts as surprisingly high. The highest levels of authoritarian populist views were recorded in Romania and Poland, where they were held by 82% and 78% of adults respectively."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/extreme-views-are-becoming-the-mainstream-in-britain-and-eur?utm_term=.yee6mNQg#.phPmMQZE
The truly poor in the US probably don't vote much. The 'poorer' people actually have most of their physiological needs well met - housing, food, warmth, (and health if they're younger and don't need healthcare). So the pure monetary aspects of the economy are not as strong motivators as for those in actual poverty. At that point, concepts of equity are probably more important than actual economic performance.
The sense I get hearing some of the disaffected Trump voters speak is that it is not the absolute level of their income that angers them, but the sense of being left behind. Thus how they are engaged may be more important to their future voting than actual economic performance.
Oh, and 4,100 Presidential appointees. Maybe we should all send our CVs to Trump Tower?
I think that in the middle of the night someone said Dow futures were down 800?
Some turnaround.
Sorry, you mentioned that. Am tired!
And Churchill was only Churchill for about five years.
C4 News Foreign Editor Lindsey Hilsum "diplomats are saying this could be the end of the West as we know it". C4 News then cut to more nonsense from the European mainland and comment that its the anniversary of kristallnacht.
its the end of the world as we know it.... File under WTF.
She's now only 12,000 behind in Michigan - if she were to win that (a big if) then if PA had gone the other way it would have been 269-269.
So I think ultimately PA was the critical state.
So without MI or PA he actually still wins 270-268.