"I suspect analysis will show a greater clustering of supporters than ever. I mean this both in the geographic sense of precincts but also culturally, as we’ve built our own echo chambers. People don’t just fear the people who vote differently they’re also mystified by them. They don’t think they know people who could think so differently to themselves and can’t work out how you could believe such things. It’s impolite to discuss politics in person so it is sectioned off to online bubbles of personal profiles of people who think alike and in that small consensus lose connection with how anyone could think otherwise. They’re staring at caricatured shadows on a cave wall, horrified by the results produced from a source they can’t comprehend."
Before the Trumpocalypse, I was scared, nervous and on edge, with the thought that a Trump victory was even remotely possible (although I never thought it would happen) and the fact that Clinton wasn't heading to an obvious lamndslide victory.
For the day or two afterwards, I was bewildered, flabbergasted, and astonished that it was possible for sixty million people to be so mindbogglingly stupid.
Now, I seem to be rapidly moving towards the stage of being bemused and curious about a Trump Presidency, with curiosity to find out what he is actually going to do. I am cautiously (and perhaps naively) optimistic that he simply won't be able to do most of the daft things he has made slogans about, that he will be constrained effectively by the USA constitutional system, and that in any case he will make U-turns, delegate, and get bored.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of a Trump presidency, what amazed me more than anything else was the incredible unalloyed enthusiasm shown by so-called liberal progressives towards the prospect of Clinton winning .... something, given her history, which I simply couldn't get my head around. Clearly I wasn't alone.
Before the Trumpocalypse, I was scared, nervous and on edge, with the thought that a Trump victory was even remotely possible (although I never thought it would happen) and the fact that Clinton wasn't heading to an obvious lamndslide victory.
For the day or two afterwards, I was bewildered, flabbergasted, and astonished that it was possible for sixty million people to be so mindbogglingly stupid.
Now, I seem to be rapidly moving towards the stage of being bemused and curious about a Trump Presidency, with curiosity to find out what he is actually going to do. I am cautiously (and perhaps naively) optimistic that he simply won't be able to do most of the daft things he has made slogans about, that he will be constrained effectively by the USA constitutional system, and that in any case he will make U-turns, delegate, and get bored.
The problem is, will this simply encourage those motivated by Trump to vote for an even more unsuitable candidate?
Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of a Trump presidency, what amazed me more than anything else was the incredible unalloyed enthusiasm shown by so-called liberal progressives towards the prospect of Clinton winning .... something, given her history, which I simply couldn't get my head around. Clearly I wasn't alone.
I think the unalloyed enthusiasm for Hillary was a direct function of the alternative: a Trump win. It is the only explanation for embracing such a rubbish candidate as Hillary Clinton. They forward-projected their fears to what America would look like if Trump won - and saw their horror of the past five days.
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
As I remember it at the time, many who didn't vote for her were prepared to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, to see how she would turn out. There is no such benefit of the doubt from those who didn't vote for Trump. People have already projected their worst fears onto him.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
All politicians want harmony, but a harmony that suits THEM. Just as all countries want peace, but a peace that suit them.
But of course nations as diverse and argumentative as the UK and the US will never find it, except maybe under the enforced discipline and single-mindedness of total war, and that's something one can hardly hope for.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
All politicians want harmony, but a harmony that suits THEM. Just as all countries want peace, but a peace that suit them.
But of course nations as diverse and argumentative as the UK and the US will never find it, except maybe under the enforced discipline and single-mindedness of total war, and that's something one can hardly hope for.
I really don't think it's fair to Mrs T to compare her with Mr T! In pretty well anyway.
@joshtpm: Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment under consideration to serve as Commerce Secretary.
He 'source' for that is an incredibly sketchy American tabloid.
That said the McMahon's are the single largest external donor to the Donald Trump Foundation charity so I expect appropriate levels of outrage from those who were so disgusted by Hillary meeting a holocaust survivor.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Most of Trump's supporters were those that turn out for the Republicans anyway. He successfully mobilised a relatively small number of disaffected unionised working class votes in key marginal states in the Mid West that got him over the line just. Most of Clinton's supporters were those that voted Democrat anyway. She lost a chunk of Obama's black support on turnout but gained support also on turnout amongst Hispanics. Unfortunately for her the distribution of voters makes black support more useful than Hispanic. Trump won the college but lost the popular vote both on tiny margins.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Most of Trump's supporters were those that turn out for the Republicans anyway. He successfully mobilised a relatively small number of disaffected unionised working class votes in key marginal states in the Mid West that got him over the line just. Most of Clinton's supporters were those that voted Democrat anyway. She lost a chunk of Obama's black support on turnout but gained support also on turnout amongst Hispanics. Unfortunately for her the distribution of voters makes black support more useful than Hispanic. Trump won the college but lost the popular vote both on tiny margins.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
I should also say participation rates (including registration as well as turnout) aren't that high in America, even for a high profile election like this one. You have to be motivated or a regular. That benefits the Republicans at the moment as the demographic trend is more to social liberalism and diversity.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
Shame that the LibDems would only be on 11%
A real bastion of progressive liberalism
It's progress from the current zero percent though. They'd only need to win 7 more seats with women to have equality.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Most of Trump's supporters were those that turn out for the Republicans anyway. He successfully mobilised a relatively small number of disaffected unionised working class votes in key marginal states in the Mid West that got him over the line just. Most of Clinton's supporters were those that voted Democrat anyway. She lost a chunk of Obama's black support on turnout but gained support also on turnout amongst Hispanics. Unfortunately for her the distribution of voters makes black support more useful than Hispanic. Trump won the college but lost the popular vote both on tiny margins.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
Yes - I commented on an earlier thread, which has the Midwest voting statistics for the past four elections that, compared with any four consecutive British elections (even at say regional level, to adjust the comparison for size), the most remarkable thing was how stable the vote share figures for both main parties have been over time. There was little of the swinging about that we have seen in the U.K. And at national level it seems like one party's president or the other always wins by a few per cent at most.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
Shame that the LibDems would only be on 11%
A real bastion of progressive liberalism
It's progress from the current zero percent though. They'd only need to win 7 more seats with women to have equality.
Only.....
Liberals don't believe in gradual progress. They want it all! NOW!
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
As I remember it at the time, many who didn't vote for her were prepared to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, to see how she would turn out. There is no such benefit of the doubt from those who didn't vote for Trump. People have already projected their worst fears onto him.
Of course the 'let's give Trump the benefit of the doubt before assuming he'll do half the things he's repeatedly said he'll do' brigade definitely aren't projecting.
I am not entirely convinced by Corporeal's thesis. It seems to me that society is not clustering but atomising, breaking into ever smaller segments and subgroups. This is being driven by the internet and the collapse of the power and influence of the mainstream media that follows this. An ever greater share of our society is no longer taking their news or information from the broadly liberal, consensual and slightly puritanical media that held our society together for 70 or 80 years.
Finding a positive majority in this new society is not easy. It is much easier to be against something than to have a worked out alternative.
But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not. They were more concerned about who was most likely to keep their job, repair their social infrastructure and keep them safe. The liberal obsession with sexist or vaguely racist comments and the like seemed like fripperies to those concerned with these more basic needs. Had the media retained its power this would not have been the case.
And we must not forget Hillary was a truly terrible candidate. It would be hard to design a candidate more likely to irritate those voters than her.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Most of Trump's supporters were those that turn out for the Republicans anyway. He successfully mobilised a relatively small number of disaffected unionised working class votes in key marginal states in the Mid West that got him over the line just. Most of Clinton's supporters were those that voted Democrat anyway. She lost a chunk of Obama's black support on turnout but gained support also on turnout amongst Hispanics. Unfortunately for her the distribution of voters makes black support more useful than Hispanic. Trump won the college but lost the popular vote both on tiny margins.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
Yes - I commented on an earlier thread, which has the Midwest voting statistics for the past four elections that, compared with any four consecutive British elections (even at say regional level, to adjust the comparison for size), the most remarkable thing was how stable the vote share figures for both main parties have been over time. There was little of the swinging about that we have seen in the U.K. And at national level it seems like one party's president or the other always wins by a few per cent at most.
it will be interesting to see in four years time if that starts to break down. Either Trump is a surprisingly good President, in which case he may get a much stronger showing from those who feared the worst beforehand. Or those fears will prove well-founded, and he will be thrown out, one imagines with considerable gusto.
The unknowable at this point is if Trump is rubbish, will the Republicans still be punished in 2020 for letting him get the top job, or will their voters be forgiving if presented with a half-decent unity candidate? Is the Republican party even capable of settling on such a unity candidate?
"Anyone who imagines the party’s electoral fortunes could be revived by a new leader – a charismatic figure from across the water, perhaps – has not taken the measure of the change that has taken place. Although parts of Labour remain outside Corbyn’s control, including much of local government, the chief power base of any future leader of the party will be the mass movement that Corbyn has built. Realigning Labour with the electorate can only be done against the opposition of most of the party membership. In these conditions a campaign of the sort Neil Kinnock waged against Militant is no longer feasible. Internecine warfare will continue and may intensify, but Labour’s moderate tendency has no chance of regaining control.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
Shame that the LibDems would only be on 11%
A real bastion of progressive liberalism
It's progress from the current zero percent though. They'd only need to win 7 more seats with women to have equality.
Only.....
Liberals don't believe in gradual progress. They want it all! NOW!
"Anyone who imagines the party’s electoral fortunes could be revived by a new leader – a charismatic figure from across the water, perhaps – has not taken the measure of the change that has taken place. Although parts of Labour remain outside Corbyn’s control, including much of local government, the chief power base of any future leader of the party will be the mass movement that Corbyn has built. Realigning Labour with the electorate can only be done against the opposition of most of the party membership. In these conditions a campaign of the sort Neil Kinnock waged against Militant is no longer feasible. Internecine warfare will continue and may intensify, but Labour’s moderate tendency has no chance of regaining control.
Not sure I agree with that either. Maybe just feeling a bit argumentative this morning. Political parties exist to win, to have the power to change things. Even the Lib Dems, Icarus like, wanted their day in the sun. If the left lose mightily, as they will under Corbyn, the party will look elsewhere and many of that new party membership will fade away again.
Well, my F1 tips were utterly wrong, as I suspected when it turned out the weather forecast I saw was 100% wrong. Setting about writing the post-race piece now. Odd race. Mix if long period of frustration and quite a lot of excitement. Bizarre that the wet weather tyre isn't a very good wet weather tyre. Maybe if they were used more often for something beyond trundling around behind a safety car something would've been done about that before now.
"In economic terms, this entails discarding the notion that the primary purpose of government is to advance globalisation. In future, governments will succeed or fail by how well they can deliver prosperity while managing the social disruption that globalisation produces. Obviously it will be a delicate balancing act. There is a risk that deglobalisation will spiral out of control. New technologies will disrupt settled patterns of working and living whatever governments may do. Popular demands cannot be met in full, but parties that do not curb the market in the interests of social cohesion are consigning themselves to the memory hole. The type of globalisation that has developed over the past decades is not politically sustainable."
@joshtpm: Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment under consideration to serve as Commerce Secretary.
He 'source' for that is an incredibly sketchy American tabloid.
That said the McMahon's are the single largest external donor to the Donald Trump Foundation charity so I expect appropriate levels of outrage from those who were so disgusted by Hillary meeting a holocaust survivor.
Oh, I see that more credible news sources are reporting it. Ha ha ha. Watch the hypocritical wankers not even bat an eyelid over this. My contempt knows no bounds
"Shell-shocked pollsters have thrown out the idea that Trump supporters systematically refused to talk to pollsters they identified with the establishment they opposed"
'thrown out' as in eliminated, or hypothesised ?
Looks like it definitely happened to me, I can't get past any other analysis particularly in the rust belt (Where it was most important for the pollsters to be right !)
"Anyone who imagines the party’s electoral fortunes could be revived by a new leader – a charismatic figure from across the water, perhaps – has not taken the measure of the change that has taken place. Although parts of Labour remain outside Corbyn’s control, including much of local government, the chief power base of any future leader of the party will be the mass movement that Corbyn has built. Realigning Labour with the electorate can only be done against the opposition of most of the party membership. In these conditions a campaign of the sort Neil Kinnock waged against Militant is no longer feasible. Internecine warfare will continue and may intensify, but Labour’s moderate tendency has no chance of regaining control.
Not sure I agree with that either. Maybe just feeling a bit argumentative this morning. Political parties exist to win, to have the power to change things. Even the Lib Dems, Icarus like, wanted their day in the sun. If the left lose mightily, as they will under Corbyn, the party will look elsewhere and many of that new party membership will fade away again.
I hope you see the class and potential of our new opening batsman....
And I see Trump is looking to appoint a judge that will send abortion 'back to the 'states'. Well aren't we glad about those people who voted for Trump safe in the knowledge that abortion rights for women were secure so would be an issue.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President. The same was not as true for Democrats and Clinton. It really wasn't that much of a revolution. It's only a revolution to those who wouldn't vote Republican anyway.
Most of Trump's supporters were those that turn out for the Republicans anyway. He successfully mobilised a relatively small number of disaffected unionised working class votes in key marginal states in the Mid West that got him over the line just. Most of Clinton's supporters were those that voted Democrat anyway. She lost a chunk of Obama's black support on turnout but gained support also on turnout amongst Hispanics. Unfortunately for her the distribution of voters makes black support more useful than Hispanic. Trump won the college but lost the popular vote both on tiny margins.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
Yes - I commented on an earlier thread, which has the Midwest voting statistics for the past four elections that, compared with any four consecutive British elections (even at say regional level, to adjust the comparison for size), the most remarkable thing was how stable the vote share figures for both main parties have been over time. There was little of the swinging about that we have seen in the U.K. And at national level it seems like one party's president or the other always wins by a few per cent at most.
it will be interesting to see in four years time if that starts to break down. Either Trump is a surprisingly good President, in which case he may get a much stronger showing from those who feared the worst beforehand. Or those fears will prove well-founded, and he will be thrown out, one imagines with considerable gusto.
The unknowable at this point is if Trump is rubbish, will the Republicans still be punished in 2020 for letting him get the top job, or will their voters be forgiving if presented with a half-decent unity candidate? Is the Republican party even capable of settling on such a unity candidate?
I despise Trump and his brand of cynicism, but I think he likely will be successful on his terms. He will successfully tap into Americans' fears and delusions, just like Berlusconi did for Italians and got himself reelected several times. Bad for Italy and the United States but good for charlatans.
On topic, on the one hand I agree with FF43 that the actual voting was pretty much a standard partisan turnout contest rather than something fought on new political battle-lines. But on the other there is actually something new happening with Brexit and Trump, which is that anti-trade and anti-immigration people are actually getting what they want in a way that they haven't before. Or at least this seems to be happening; Neither Brexit nor Trump have actually happened yet and nobody knows what Trump will do, or WTF to do about Brexit.
Trade, and to a lesser extent migration, is an area where there's long been a consensus between anyone likely to actually take power. But the voters have never liked it. Since the other side has always ultimately been on the same side, the mainstream has never really felt the need to make positive arguments. This was true way back in the US in 2008 when Obama and Hillary ran against each other pretending they were going to renegotiate NAFTA, and it was true for Conservatives in Britain ever since John Major: They always acted "skeptical" on the EU, to the point that Cameron was affecting to be ready to vote to leave, just weeks before, with only minimal changes, he started leading the campaign to remain. Hillary did the same thing again this time: Faced with somebody attacking TPP, rather than defend TPP, she made an incredibly unconvincing claim not to agree with TPP.
You can get away with this for a long time when both sides secretly agree with each other, but you're ultimately eating your seed-corn, because when a viable candidate finally does come along and start trying to step outside the consensus, you find you haven't got anything to fight them with. The extreme ends of these positions are racist, so you can attack the people who hold them for being racists, but that's liable to backfire if too many voters agree with them, because they'll either be narked off at being insulted or think, "apparently I'm a racist, maybe that's a political philosophy I should explore some more".
If you look at an issue like abortion there's a whole barrage of tested rhetorical weapons ready for either side to deploy. What's the equivalent of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" for migration or trade? The battle has gone unfought, and there's nothing in the tanks. You end up with something lame like "Stronger in" or "Stronger together". I think they're beginning to see that if they don't fight, they're going to lose.
So I agree with Corporeal that we will see the battle-lines shifting a bit, unless Trump and May work out creative ways to screw the populists again and go back to business as usual.
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
"Anyone who imagines the party’s electoral fortunes could be revived by a new leader – a charismatic figure from across the water, perhaps – has not taken the measure of the change that has taken place. Although parts of Labour remain outside Corbyn’s control, including much of local government, the chief power base of any future leader of the party will be the mass movement that Corbyn has built. Realigning Labour with the electorate can only be done against the opposition of most of the party membership. In these conditions a campaign of the sort Neil Kinnock waged against Militant is no longer feasible. Internecine warfare will continue and may intensify, but Labour’s moderate tendency has no chance of regaining control.
Not sure I agree with that either. Maybe just feeling a bit argumentative this morning. Political parties exist to win, to have the power to change things. Even the Lib Dems, Icarus like, wanted their day in the sun. If the left lose mightily, as they will under Corbyn, the party will look elsewhere and many of that new party membership will fade away again.
I hope you see the class and potential of our new opening batsman....
Excellent debut, fantastic temperament, especially for one so young. But Test cricket is a tough game and the analysts will be going over his technique now with a fine tooth comb looking for weaknesses for their bowlers to exploit. It will be fascinating to see how he copes over the series. Debuts don't get much tougher than this.
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
Quite. My friends mercilessly insult each other precisely because we know we don't mean it.
"Anyone who imagines the party’s electoral fortunes could be revived by a new leader – a charismatic figure from across the water, perhaps – has not taken the measure of the change that has taken place. Although parts of Labour remain outside Corbyn’s control, including much of local government, the chief power base of any future leader of the party will be the mass movement that Corbyn has built. Realigning Labour with the electorate can only be done against the opposition of most of the party membership. In these conditions a campaign of the sort Neil Kinnock waged against Militant is no longer feasible. Internecine warfare will continue and may intensify, but Labour’s moderate tendency has no chance of regaining control.
Not sure I agree with that either. Maybe just feeling a bit argumentative this morning. Political parties exist to win, to have the power to change things. Even the Lib Dems, Icarus like, wanted their day in the sun. If the left lose mightily, as they will under Corbyn, the party will look elsewhere and many of that new party membership will fade away again.
I hope you see the class and potential of our new opening batsman....
Excellent debut, fantastic temperament, especially for one so young. But Test cricket is a tough game and the analysts will be going over his technique now with a fine tooth comb looking for weaknesses for their bowlers to exploit. It will be fascinating to see how he copes over the series. Debuts don't get much tougher than this.
Read Aggers piece on the BBC website.. He doesn't think there is an obvious flaw like Hales had...
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
Yes. The group think of our media, who are desperately trying to impose their social norms on all of society, becomes ever more absurd and incredible, turning off the very people they want to influence.
None of this means Trump will be a good President of course.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
Yes - I commented on an earlier thread, which has the Midwest voting statistics for the past four elections that, compared with any four consecutive British elections (even at say regional level, to adjust the comparison for size), the most remarkable thing was how stable the vote share figures for both main parties have been over time. There was little of the swinging about that we have seen in the U.K. And at national level it seems like one party's president or the other always wins by a few per cent at most.
it will be interesting to see in four years time if that starts to break down. Either Trump is a surprisingly good President, in which case he may get a much stronger showing from those who feared the worst beforehand. Or those fears will prove well-founded, and he will be thrown out, one imagines with considerable gusto.
The unknowable at this point is if Trump is rubbish, will the Republicans still be punished in 2020 for letting him get the top job, or will their voters be forgiving if presented with a half-decent unity candidate? Is the Republican party even capable of settling on such a unity candidate?
The other factors of difference in the US seem to me to be that:
- a much bigger proportion of the population opts out altogether, either by not registering (no idea how many people this would be, but all the effort made to register people suggests not insignificant) or not voting (not far short of 50% of those who actually register)
- among that half that engage, it seems much more common (and the primary system encourages) to be tribal and associate yourself with one of the main parties. Maybe in the 1960/70s a majority of Brits saw themselves as Labour or Tory, but here at least this feature has faded away; otherwise for example Scotland could not have happened. Even in solid Tory or Labour areas there is less of the 'my family always voted X and so do I' that we used to get, and it seems the US still does.
Indeed within Europe the process of change manifests itself as decline in support for longstanding mainstream parties and the emergence of new political forces. In the US, so far, one non-mainstream person has managed to become the lead candidate for one of the parties, but otherwise the traditional two-party system appears to be wholly intact?
Well, my F1 tips were utterly wrong, as I suspected when it turned out the weather forecast I saw was 100% wrong. Setting about writing the post-race piece now. Odd race. Mix if long period of frustration and quite a lot of excitement. Bizarre that the wet weather tyre isn't a very good wet weather tyre. Maybe if they were used more often for something beyond trundling around behind a safety car something would've been done about that before now.
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
Congratulations on being able to resist the temptation to crowbar in a 'waaaycist'.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
Shame that the LibDems would only be on 11% A real bastion of progressive liberalism
It's progress from the current zero percent though. They'd only need to win 7 more seats with women to have equality. Only.....
Or for some of the more liberal Conservative female MPs to cross the floor to the Lib Dems, Mr Mark. There are several who do not identify with the Conservative-UKIP line that Mrs May has adopted.
Does the Sphinx have a secret ? The previewing from tonight's Mansion House speech suggests maybe she doesn't. Rhetorically she's suggesting the UK will triangulate between EU membership and protectionism. But what does that actually mean ! She has a sudden downer on Globalisation but also wants us to be " a global champion of Free Trade ". I suppose we'll have to wait for the full speech but I'm yet to spot any sort of coherent theme.
Meanwhile yesterday's MoS was briefing we'll seek sectoral membership of the Customs Union as well as sectoral access to the Single Market. To be a member of the eurosphere in sectors where it suits but cutting bilateral deals in others. Anything is possible if we agree a big enough budget contribution. That assumes though the negations are cool, calm and nuanced though.
As they'll be conducted by politicians in the current febrile environment I'm less than convinced.
As good as Corporeal's pieces have been, I think they miss a fundamental point. Trump was the Republican candidate, and clearly people who normally vote Republican continued to do so with Trump as the candidate for President
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
Yes - I commented on an earlier thread, which has the Midwest voting statistics for the past four elections that, compared with any four consecutive British elections (even at say regional level, to adjust the comparison for size), the most remarkable thing was how stable the vote share figures for both main parties have been over time. There was little of the swinging about that we have seen in the U.K. And at national level it seems like one party's president or the other always wins by a few per cent at most.
it will be interesting to see in four years time if that starts to break down. Either Trump is a surprisingly good President, in which case he may get a much stronger showing from those who feared the worst beforehand. Or those fears will prove well-founded, and he will be thrown out, one imagines with considerable gusto.
The unknowable at this point is if Trump is rubbish, will the Republicans still be punished in 2020 for letting him get the top job, or will their voters be forgiving if presented with a half-decent unity candidate? Is the Republican party even capable of settling on such a unity candidate?
The other factors of difference in the US seem to me to be that:
snip
Indeed within Europe the process of change manifests itself as decline in support for longstanding mainstream parties and the emergence of new political forces. In the US, so far, one non-mainstream person has managed to become the lead candidate for one of the parties, but otherwise the traditional two-party system appears to be wholly intact?
Morning all,
A good way of viewing Trump is that he ran a successful third party, independent campaign, using the Republican brand name.
Worth noting the rain was pretty heavy and persistent, which is relatively rare in F1. It rains at a lot at Interlagos (more than Silverstone) but usually isn't so persistent.
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
Interesting article this morning by Roger Bootle in DT (premium-only I'm afraid) about Trump's planned fiscal expansion. Could mean US debt reaches 100% GDP. Bootle reckons Hammond may follow a similar path, cutting taxes and spending on infrastructure.
Worth noting the rain was pretty heavy and persistent, which is relatively rare in F1. It rains at a lot at Interlagos (more than Silverstone) but usually isn't so persistent.
Rain is unlikely to be a problem at Abu Dhabi.
I have been to the UAE when the streets of Ras al Khaimah looked more like Venice. Rare, but not unknown....
"I suspect analysis will show a greater clustering of supporters than ever. I mean this both in the geographic sense of precincts but also culturally, as we’ve built our own echo chambers. People don’t just fear the people who vote differently they’re also mystified by them. They don’t think they know people who could think so differently to themselves and can’t work out how you could believe such things. It’s impolite to discuss politics in person so it is sectioned off to online bubbles of personal profiles of people who think alike and in that small consensus lose connection with how anyone could think otherwise. They’re staring at caricatured shadows on a cave wall, horrified by the results produced from a source they can’t comprehend."
It seems like people do actually manage to get quite a range of viewpoints in their streams.
Interesting article - thanks for sharing. On a methodology point; I'm a little sceptical about asking people to judge how one-sided their news is... They may feel like it's diverse but not sure they will be a great judge of that.
Interested to see what Facebook decide to do in terms of filtering/managing the news... On both sides there were a lot of convincing but totally untrue memes... Do they not have a responsibility to avoid promoting them?
Meanwhile yesterday's MoS was briefing we'll seek sectoral membership of the Customs Union as well as sectoral access to the Single Market. To be a member of the eurosphere in sectors where it suits but cutting bilateral deals in others. Anything is possible if we agree a big enough budget contribution. That assumes though the negations are cool, calm and nuanced though.
As they'll be conducted by politicians in the current febrile environment I'm less than convinced.
Right, the problem is that each individual sector has an interest group for and against, and those interest groups are represented by nation states, each with its own leader, voters and upper and lower houses. There's going to be a lot of, "Country X doesn't have to take Britain's scones, so why do we have to take their jam? This is a BETRAYAL by our CORRUPT GLOBAL ELITES".
Does the Sphinx have a secret ? The previewing from tonight's Mansion House speech suggests maybe she doesn't. Rhetorically she's suggesting the UK will triangulate between EU membership and protectionism. But what does that actually mean ! She has a sudden downer on Globalisation but also wants us to be " a global champion of Free Trade ". I suppose we'll have to wait for the full speech but I'm yet to spot any sort of coherent theme.
Mr. Mark, one practice session of Abu Dhabi was almost rain-compromised. The problem is twofold: the teams have no knowledge at all of what the track's like in the wet, and unless that's forecast for qualifying/the race there's no point at all running because you risk damaging the car for nothing of value.
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
I'd be interested to see the detail on deporting two million people. That is a hell of a lot of work - manpower and tracking down people etc etc. Is it even practical? How many extra police will he need?
Interesting article this morning by Roger Bootle in DT (premium-only I'm afraid) about Trump's planned fiscal expansion. Could mean US debt reaches 100% GDP. Bootle reckons Hammond may follow a similar path, cutting taxes and spending on infrastructure.
Did Bootle think it would work? He has some interesting views but sadly as it was behind the pay wall I couldn't read it.
Useless fact: if the LDs win the Richmond Park by-election, the percentage of female MPs in the House of Commons will reach 30% for the first time, (assuming the winner in Sleaford & North Hykeham is either the Conservative or UKIP candidate, both of whom are women).
Shame that the LibDems would only be on 11% A real bastion of progressive liberalism
It's progress from the current zero percent though. They'd only need to win 7 more seats with women to have equality. Only.....
Or for some of the more liberal Conservative female MPs to cross the floor to the Lib Dems, Mr Mark. There are several who do not identify with the Conservative-UKIP line that Mrs May has adopted.
Yeah - but they know losers when they look across and see them.
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
As I remember it at the time, many who didn't vote for her were prepared to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, to see how she would turn out. There is no such benefit of the doubt from those who didn't vote for Trump. People have already projected their worst fears onto him.
"Trump’s victory speech felt like an echo of Margaret Thatcher declaring she wanted to bring harmony to replace discord, with Trump as with Thatcher, harmony seems a long, long, way off."
As I remember it at the time, many who didn't vote for her were prepared to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, to see how she would turn out. There is no such benefit of the doubt from those who didn't vote for Trump. People have already projected their worst fears onto him.
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
I don't doubt Trump is imagining a scale up; will probably ignore various safeguards and guidelines and that there will be a much greater focus... But I can imagine that footage of immigrants getting deported may well help him be seen as a strong man who gets things done...
In a year we may be reading arguments from liberals like me pointing out that actually Trump hasn't deported that many people and doesn't deserve his tough guy image...
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
I'd be interested to see the detail on deporting two million people. That is a hell of a lot of work - manpower and tracking down people etc etc. Is it even practical? How many extra police will he need?
I'm not sure if this is all "handcuff you and bus you to the border" or whether some of it's "This is an order to leave the country, if we see you here again we'll be very cross".
Trump has already blown up the Peso which implies more illegal immigration, so as long as he doesn't blow up the US economy as well he should have more people to deport.
"Shell-shocked pollsters have thrown out the idea that Trump supporters systematically refused to talk to pollsters they identified with the establishment they opposed"
'thrown out' as in eliminated, or hypothesised ?
Looks like it definitely happened to me, I can't get past any other analysis particularly in the rust belt (Where it was most important for the pollsters to be right !)
If they were willing to talk, the corollory is that they weren't asked.
In retrospect the pollers/ media seem to have missed the fact that currently in the USA the Republican party have control of the Senate, House and more Governors than the Democrat Party.
So it may also be a case that the Republican supporters had spoken previously, but no one listened.
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
I don't doubt Trump is imagining a scale up; will probably ignore various safeguards and guidelines and that there will be a much greater focus... But I can imagine that footage of immigrants getting deported may well help him be seen as a strong man who gets things done...
In a year we may be reading arguments from liberals like me pointing out that actually Trump hasn't deported that many people and doesn't deserve his tough guy image...
What he will do is penalise "Sanctuary Cities" where local police are instructed not to assist Federal immigration officials.
It does prove that her motivations are what many leavers suspected - she's not interested in promoting Parliamentary democracy, she simply is looking for methods to either delay or prevent Brexit.
The simple fact is that this is a constitutional matter which is reserved to Westminster under the law that enacted Devolution. I haven't heard any proper legal argument which suggests otherwise.
Before the Trumpocalypse, I was scared, nervous and on edge, with the thought that a Trump victory was even remotely possible (although I never thought it would happen) and the fact that Clinton wasn't heading to an obvious lamndslide victory.
For the day or two afterwards, I was bewildered, flabbergasted, and astonished that it was possible for sixty million people to be so mindbogglingly stupid.
Now, I seem to be rapidly moving towards the stage of being bemused and curious about a Trump Presidency, with curiosity to find out what he is actually going to do. I am cautiously (and perhaps naively) optimistic that he simply won't be able to do most of the daft things he has made slogans about, that he will be constrained effectively by the USA constitutional system, and that in any case he will make U-turns, delegate, and get bored.
Ahh - so you have reached the 'acceptance' stage of grief (Many thousands of Democrat Supporters still appear to be in the 'Denial' or 'Anger' state). TBH I am amazed that 60 million Americans could be so stupid as to vote for what appeared to be one of the most crooked and careless politians of the last 20 years.
I think the most useful, for future betting, bit of info might be that Ocon was good in the wet but this won't have caught many people's eyes because they were understandably focused on Verstappen.
Judging Trump solely on what he's said since the election he's committed to report a minimum of 2m illegal immigrants. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of such a policy it will be a significant cultural event. We've seen what 24hr news then social media and smart phone footage has done to cases of alleged police brutality in the states. 2 million deportations is a lot of You Tube videos.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
I don't doubt Trump is imagining a scale up; will probably ignore various safeguards and guidelines and that there will be a much greater focus... But I can imagine that footage of immigrants getting deported may well help him be seen as a strong man who gets things done...
In a year we may be reading arguments from liberals like me pointing out that actually Trump hasn't deported that many people and doesn't deserve his tough guy image...
It's just a revolving door, anyway; it either turns quickly or it turns slowly.
" The algorithm operated on a separate computer server than the rest of the Clinton operation as a security precaution, and only a few senior aides were able to access it."
Obviously Clinton was never in control of it then.
I'm expecting the price of popcorn to rise tenfold. I think Donald Trump is just a front for a shadowy consortium undertaking a massive cornering of the popcorn market.
"Shell-shocked pollsters have thrown out the idea that Trump supporters systematically refused to talk to pollsters they identified with the establishment they opposed"
'thrown out' as in eliminated, or hypothesised ?
Looks like it definitely happened to me, I can't get past any other analysis particularly in the rust belt (Where it was most important for the pollsters to be right !)
If they were willing to talk, the corollory is that they weren't asked.
In retrospect the pollers/ media seem to have missed the fact that currently in the USA the Republican party have control of the Senate, House and more Governors than the Democrat Party.
So it may also be a case that the Republican supporters had spoken previously, but no one listened.
Too many bought into the "Coalition of the Ascendant" myth.
Interesting take on free trade from Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, someone who worked on NAFTA. Hopefully those on the left read it and understand why unbridled free trade is hurting the lower paid and less educated.
Interesting article this morning by Roger Bootle in DT (premium-only I'm afraid) about Trump's planned fiscal expansion. Could mean US debt reaches 100% GDP. Bootle reckons Hammond may follow a similar path, cutting taxes and spending on infrastructure.
It does prove that her motivations are what many leavers suspected - she's not interested in promoting Parliamentary democracy, she simply is looking for methods to either delay or prevent Brexit.
The simple fact is that this is a constitutional matter which is reserved to Westminster under the law that enacted Devolution. I haven't heard any proper legal argument which suggests otherwise.
Oh that is all right then , why do we need a poxy Supreme Court when we have such luminaries as you on hand to spray us in bovine excrement.
Interesting article this morning by Roger Bootle in DT (premium-only I'm afraid) about Trump's planned fiscal expansion. Could mean US debt reaches 100% GDP. Bootle reckons Hammond may follow a similar path, cutting taxes and spending on infrastructure.
Yep, we are all Keynesian now
Hopefully this might lead to some normalisation of interest rates.
" The algorithm operated on a separate computer server than the rest of the Clinton operation as a security precaution, and only a few senior aides were able to access it."
Obviously Clinton was never in control of it then.
What this smells like is: Some spirited marketing person sold a non-technical manager high up in the campaign on their amazing thing. The vendor was terrified that some competent in-house person would see it and inform the client that it was in fact bullshit, so they persuaded them that it all had to be a confidential for-your-eyes-only classified magic thing lest the enemy stumble on their secret weapon.
In response to Corporeal's missive (for which many thanks), I would argue the adage "people like people like themselves" has always held true, As I look back through my life and the friendships and relationships I have had, the common factor is they were all with people with similar traits.
There have always been "echo chambers" - there were fewer once. You might argue there were once only three "upper class, middle class and working class". Now, the number has increased exponentially and include political preference, football team, postcode where you live, the games you play, the tv you watch.
At a fundamental level, it's about trying to re-create the village life from which our forebears came - where you knew everyone and everyone knew you. In a global online world, the village has gone but deep down we want it back and feel comfortable in it.
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's win, like Brexit, is part driven by nostalgia - a desire to return to the village, to the romanticised idyll of the past where we were in control of our destiny and where we had all the things that gave our lives meaning and status - job, house, family, control, the way of life we wanted to have without other people telling us how to live.
The trouble with the past is it's a comforting place but it's no help for the present or future. Shaping the future starts with not only the recognition that the present isn't working but the past didn't work either and being receptive to different ideas and ways is how the future gets shaped.
"Clinton’s data-driven campaign relied heavily on an algorithm named Ada." Ada is not an algorithm, it is a programming language. That statement is like saying her campaign relied heavily on C or Fortran.
"Clinton’s data-driven campaign relied heavily on an algorithm named Ada." Ada is not an algorithm, it is a programming language. That statement is like saying her campaign relied heavily on C or Fortran.
No, I think they meant that they nicknamed their program, Ada. I doubt anyone involved would even remember there was such a language and I would be extremely surprised if their program was written in it.
"Clinton’s data-driven campaign relied heavily on an algorithm named Ada." Ada is not an algorithm, it is a programming language. That statement is like saying her campaign relied heavily on C or Fortran.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Political Divide, Part III
Comments
I get the temptation to think this but the research so far doesn't really seem to show it. There's a round-up here:
https://medium.com/@willrinehart/five-things-we-know-about-the-filter-bubble-thesis-f34dfdc2789e#.poo2rxrwl
It seems like people do actually manage to get quite a range of viewpoints in their streams.
For the day or two afterwards, I was bewildered, flabbergasted, and astonished that it was possible for sixty million people to be so mindbogglingly stupid.
Now, I seem to be rapidly moving towards the stage of being bemused and curious about a Trump Presidency, with curiosity to find out what he is actually going to do. I am cautiously (and perhaps naively) optimistic that he simply won't be able to do most of the daft things he has made slogans about, that he will be constrained effectively by the USA constitutional system, and that in any case he will make U-turns, delegate, and get bored.
Well, they got that right.
As I remember it at the time, many who didn't vote for her were prepared to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, to see how she would turn out. There is no such benefit of the doubt from those who didn't vote for Trump. People have already projected their worst fears onto him.
All politicians want harmony, but a harmony that suits THEM. Just as all countries want peace, but a peace that suit them.
But of course nations as diverse and argumentative as the UK and the US will never find it, except maybe under the enforced discipline and single-mindedness of total war, and that's something one can hardly hope for.
A real bastion of progressive liberalism
That said the McMahon's are the single largest external donor to the Donald Trump Foundation charity so I expect appropriate levels of outrage from those who were so disgusted by Hillary meeting a holocaust survivor.
There was no revolution in voting terms. America remains the politically 50/50 nation it has been for several decades
John Gray essay: "All that seemed solid in liberalism is melting into air."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/closing-liberal-mind
Only.....
Finding a positive majority in this new society is not easy. It is much easier to be against something than to have a worked out alternative.
But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not. They were more concerned about who was most likely to keep their job, repair their social infrastructure and keep them safe. The liberal obsession with sexist or vaguely racist comments and the like seemed like fripperies to those concerned with these more basic needs. Had the media retained its power this would not have been the case.
And we must not forget Hillary was a truly terrible candidate. It would be hard to design a candidate more likely to irritate those voters than her.
The unknowable at this point is if Trump is rubbish, will the Republicans still be punished in 2020 for letting him get the top job, or will their voters be forgiving if presented with a half-decent unity candidate? Is the Republican party even capable of settling on such a unity candidate?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07vwr08
Well, my F1 tips were utterly wrong, as I suspected when it turned out the weather forecast I saw was 100% wrong. Setting about writing the post-race piece now. Odd race. Mix if long period of frustration and quite a lot of excitement. Bizarre that the wet weather tyre isn't a very good wet weather tyre. Maybe if they were used more often for something beyond trundling around behind a safety car something would've been done about that before now.
'thrown out' as in eliminated, or hypothesised ?
Looks like it definitely happened to me, I can't get past any other analysis particularly in the rust belt (Where it was most important for the pollsters to be right !)
I hope you see the class and potential of our new opening batsman....
Trade, and to a lesser extent migration, is an area where there's long been a consensus between anyone likely to actually take power. But the voters have never liked it. Since the other side has always ultimately been on the same side, the mainstream has never really felt the need to make positive arguments. This was true way back in the US in 2008 when Obama and Hillary ran against each other pretending they were going to renegotiate NAFTA, and it was true for Conservatives in Britain ever since John Major: They always acted "skeptical" on the EU, to the point that Cameron was affecting to be ready to vote to leave, just weeks before, with only minimal changes, he started leading the campaign to remain. Hillary did the same thing again this time: Faced with somebody attacking TPP, rather than defend TPP, she made an incredibly unconvincing claim not to agree with TPP.
You can get away with this for a long time when both sides secretly agree with each other, but you're ultimately eating your seed-corn, because when a viable candidate finally does come along and start trying to step outside the consensus, you find you haven't got anything to fight them with. The extreme ends of these positions are racist, so you can attack the people who hold them for being racists, but that's liable to backfire if too many voters agree with them, because they'll either be narked off at being insulted or think, "apparently I'm a racist, maybe that's a political philosophy I should explore some more".
If you look at an issue like abortion there's a whole barrage of tested rhetorical weapons ready for either side to deploy. What's the equivalent of "pro-life" or "pro-choice" for migration or trade? The battle has gone unfought, and there's nothing in the tanks. You end up with something lame like "Stronger in" or "Stronger together". I think they're beginning to see that if they don't fight, they're going to lose.
So I agree with Corporeal that we will see the battle-lines shifting a bit, unless Trump and May work out creative ways to screw the populists again and go back to business as usual.
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
None of this means Trump will be a good President of course.
- a much bigger proportion of the population opts out altogether, either by not registering (no idea how many people this would be, but all the effort made to register people suggests not insignificant) or not voting (not far short of 50% of those who actually register)
- among that half that engage, it seems much more common (and the primary system encourages) to be tribal and associate yourself with one of the main parties. Maybe in the 1960/70s a majority of Brits saw themselves as Labour or Tory, but here at least this feature has faded away; otherwise for example Scotland could not have happened. Even in solid Tory or Labour areas there is less of the 'my family always voted X and so do I' that we used to get, and it seems the US still does.
Indeed within Europe the process of change manifests itself as decline in support for longstanding mainstream parties and the emergence of new political forces. In the US, so far, one non-mainstream person has managed to become the lead candidate for one of the parties, but otherwise the traditional two-party system appears to be wholly intact?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/09/clintons-data-driven-campaign-relied-heavily-on-an-algorithm-named-ada-what-didnt-she-see/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/14/uk-must-become-global-leader-in-free-trade-theresa-may-brexit-vote-donald-trump-election?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Meanwhile yesterday's MoS was briefing we'll seek sectoral membership of the Customs Union as well as sectoral access to the Single Market. To be a member of the eurosphere in sectors where it suits but cutting bilateral deals in others. Anything is possible if we agree a big enough budget contribution. That assumes though the negations are cool, calm and nuanced though.
As they'll be conducted by politicians in the current febrile environment I'm less than convinced.
Cricket and F1 are the two sports that can see your bets buggered senseless by the weather.
I suppose Horse Racing too.
https://twitter.com/STARBRIGHT164/status/798076756859228161
A good way of viewing Trump is that he ran a successful third party, independent campaign, using the Republican brand name.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/9/donald-trump-and-the-new-american-revolution/
Rain is unlikely to be a problem at Abu Dhabi.
Perhaps a better or at least alternative question of the Trump Presidency is will it be cathartic ? Regardless of success will it lead the US toward rebalancing or equilibrium ? Or just increase the pressure in the existing cooker ?
Interested to see what Facebook decide to do in terms of filtering/managing the news... On both sides there were a lot of convincing but totally untrue memes... Do they not have a responsibility to avoid promoting them?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/305617-seething-liberals-vow-revolution-in-democratic-party
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
I don't doubt Trump is imagining a scale up; will probably ignore various safeguards and guidelines and that there will be a much greater focus... But I can imagine that footage of immigrants getting deported may well help him be seen as a strong man who gets things done...
In a year we may be reading arguments from liberals like me pointing out that actually Trump hasn't deported that many people and doesn't deserve his tough guy image...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
I'm not sure if this is all "handcuff you and bus you to the border" or whether some of it's "This is an order to leave the country, if we see you here again we'll be very cross".
Trump has already blown up the Peso which implies more illegal immigration, so as long as he doesn't blow up the US economy as well he should have more people to deport.
In retrospect the pollers/ media seem to have missed the fact that currently in the USA the Republican party have control of the Senate, House and more Governors than the Democrat Party.
So it may also be a case that the Republican supporters had spoken previously, but no one listened.
The simple fact is that this is a constitutional matter which is reserved to Westminster under the law that enacted Devolution. I haven't heard any proper legal argument which suggests otherwise.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/brazil-post-race-analysis-2016.html
I think the most useful, for future betting, bit of info might be that Ocon was good in the wet but this won't have caught many people's eyes because they were understandably focused on Verstappen.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
The author doesn't seem to like anyone.
Obviously Clinton was never in control of it then.
Interesting take on free trade from Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary, someone who worked on NAFTA. Hopefully those on the left read it and understand why unbridled free trade is hurting the lower paid and less educated.
In response to Corporeal's missive (for which many thanks), I would argue the adage "people like people like themselves" has always held true, As I look back through my life and the friendships and relationships I have had, the common factor is they were all with people with similar traits.
There have always been "echo chambers" - there were fewer once. You might argue there were once only three "upper class, middle class and working class". Now, the number has increased exponentially and include political preference, football team, postcode where you live, the games you play, the tv you watch.
At a fundamental level, it's about trying to re-create the village life from which our forebears came - where you knew everyone and everyone knew you. In a global online world, the village has gone but deep down we want it back and feel comfortable in it.
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's win, like Brexit, is part driven by nostalgia - a desire to return to the village, to the romanticised idyll of the past where we were in control of our destiny and where we had all the things that gave our lives meaning and status - job, house, family, control, the way of life we wanted to have without other people telling us how to live.
The trouble with the past is it's a comforting place but it's no help for the present or future. Shaping the future starts with not only the recognition that the present isn't working but the past didn't work either and being receptive to different ideas and ways is how the future gets shaped.
Ada is not an algorithm, it is a programming language.
That statement is like saying her campaign relied heavily on C or Fortran.