Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.
That said, people live longer if at 60 people decide to do parish council work they could have decades of good community work to keep them busy.
Indeed he did, as he did with all the Schoolz 'n' 'Ospitals that he built on the PFI never-never. Doesn't make it right though, and poor show to the Telegraph for using language like that for the headline of what's currently their front page story.
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.
This is such great trolling and a much needed slap to identity warriors
"Yiannopoulos started a college scholarship fund exclusively for white men, initially as a joke, 'something that would wind up social-justice warriors,' he acknowledged.
It is very real now, however. The Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant has $125,000 in funds, collected from private donors, which will be disbursed in $2,500 grants in 2017—2018 exclusively to 'white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic-minority classmates'.
He is trying to rebalance a system that is heavily weighted in favor of those who seek to classify themselves as minorities or 'special' or 'different'
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.
That said, people live longer if at 60 people decide to do parish council work they could have decades of good community work to keep them busy.
I think they'll get fewer though as the baby boomers move up the age demographic. As an example, I've been a parish councillor for 13 years. I was the youngest when I joined and I still am, now at 50.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Hang on a sec.. Why is Green supposedly offering 250 or 300 MILLION.. He sold the business for a quid.. He must have known the state of affairs.
The problem, from my own experience as a trustee, is the timescales of the problem. Pension fund deficits have soared in recent years on the back of falling bond rates. This has, however, been a very slow moving car crash. Every year for the last 4 my closed fund has had additional funds put into it, the funds invested have done well and...the deficit has gone up.
The recent uptick in bond rates promises some relief from that and the fact remains that even the BHS pension deficit might well disappear completely if bond rates returned to something like "normal". The prospects of pre-2007 normality returning, however, are still disappearing over the horizon.
The problem is accentuated for a pension scheme like BHS. In the latter years insufficient money was being put into the scheme but that is because the business was strapped for cash. Did they really want to sack people and close stores to generate some cash to put into the Scheme? How would the current employees, not in the scheme feel about that? Green was not taking cash out in those years but he had done earlier when the pension liability probably did not exist.
I think this is much messier than it looks and evidence of wrongdoing is going to be hard to find. Part of the problem was undoubtedly the model of running businesses lean with lots of debt that became so popular in the 1980s onwards. Basically such aggressive balance sheet tactics meant that the risk of something going wrong was not on the owners of the business but on someone else, in this case the pensioners.
Thanks for the very good explanation. I was a trustee myself and I know about the issues in the 80's and 90's,, I forget the terminology now MFR seems to ring a bell (minimum funding rate) and this proved to be disastrous, but in those days schemes were often classed as overfunded and pension "holidays" from employer conts was common. I seem to recall that schemes were not allowed to be less than 95% funded NOR more than 105%.
Things should have been left well alone, meddling always causes trouble, esp if the meddlers don't know what they are doing.
I can't think of a picture that demonstrates the yawning gulf between Hillary and Trump supporters. Apparently Tom Hanks and another celebrity got this highest civilian honour.
Shteve A war hero has to stand there and hold a medal for Ellen DeGeneres. https://t.co/RShhzQJNfj
Hold on, this would be the supporters of the Trump who told John McCain he wasn't a war hero because he got captured?
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.
People claim we need more young people in local government, I was merely saying you do get them. Seeing who sticks around is also the key point - being a cllr is pretty thankless unless you can be a cabinet figure, so those who get in early and stay in, are presumably the ones who actually care about the work rather than just wannabe MPs.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
There's rumours abound of electoral college delegates being targeted ahead of their meeting, in a last attempt to stop them confirming Trump as president. Legal but undemocratic, very much like that anti-Brexit campaigners in the UK.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Facts are facts, just accept it. Don't try to spin.
I can't think of a picture that demonstrates the yawning gulf between Hillary and Trump supporters. Apparently Tom Hanks and another celebrity got this highest civilian honour.
Shteve A war hero has to stand there and hold a medal for Ellen DeGeneres. https://t.co/RShhzQJNfj
I have to say I find the reports on this rather depressing...
The headline is all about the massive sacrifice Ellen made coming out as gay, but you have to get way down the report to realise the likes of Bill Gates for his massive work for charity plus people like Richard Garwin and Frank Gehry were also honoured.
Richard f##king Garwin gets an "also mention"...go look him up kids!
As well as his famed work on the H-Bomb, he advised every president in his lifetime, and a few other bits and pieces...
"Over the course of more than four decades at IBM Research, he invented pioneering techniques in nuclear magnetic resonance, used in today’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. He carried out groundbreaking work in superconducting computers and silicon integrated circuit technology. He was integral to the development of laser printers and displays, gesture and gaze-controlled input to computers and devices, touchscreen monitors and more."
Ellen's achievements seem distinctly underwhelming compared to the others.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Ah. I see. Adult behaviour is to both claim and deny that US Presidents are elected democratically in the same post. I think I'll stay a toddler
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Ah. I see. Adult behaviour is to both claim and deny that US Presidents are elected democratically in the same post. I think I'll stay a toddler
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.
People claim we need more young people in local government, I was merely saying you do get them. Seeing who sticks around is also the key point - being a cllr is pretty thankless unless you can be a cabinet figure, so those who get in early and stay in, are presumably the ones who actually care about the work rather than just wannabe MPs.
Additionally, no one joins a parish council as a career stepping stone, they are too minor and parochial. Outside of towns, I'm given to understand very few have party candidates stand as well, so not really for political nerds either. Unitary district or council level maybe.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?
''The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.''
They are also threatened by the numbers. Breitbart boasted of 41million unique hits over the US election campaign.
What if the alt right sites started to capture a larger share of the shrinking pool of advertising revenues?
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Facts are facts, just accept it. Don't try to spin.
Yes......they are and you lost and so did the democrats under the agreed system. a system entirely accepted by you and others while they were ahead.
This is just the final few tail flaps of the landed fish. It's done and ready for the fat fryer.
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.
That's exactly what the Corbynites say. Trump and his supporters live in a similar echo chamber.
Desperate stuff, reminds me of those who tried to claim that Obama wasn't a natural born US citizen and ineligible for office and the antics of some remaindermen over here. Once Trump is sworn in on 20th of January, that's it, game over.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?
''The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.''
They are also threatened by the numbers. Breitbart boasted of 41million unique hits over the US election campaign.
What if the alt right sites started to capture a larger share of the shrinking pool of advertising revenues?
I don't suppose it'll have much impact - but Trumpers are running a viewers boycott of CNN now. Leftists are bullying advertising aggregators to drop Breitbart - one has already done so App something.
I said it weeks ago, but this is a massive culture war between left and right - and isn't going to go away. American Right activists are now using all the dirty tricks of the Left - without the thuggery.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land. "Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
You lost. Get over it already.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
No point in your state doing that until New York and California do it too. Well, not unless you want to guarantee Democrat Presidents for the next few decades.
And if they do, you might as well abandon the Electoral College. And have the election fought in a dozen states and the rest forgotten. So no, I can't see it being a popular cause.
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
Long term members more likely to be engaged? Who'd have thunk it.
90.7% of new-joiner Labour members don't canvass? What do they think the Party is, a safe space from voters?
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
No point in your state doing that until New York and California do it too. Well, not unless you want to guarantee Democrat Presidents for the next few decades.
And if they do, you might as well abandon the Electoral College. And have the election fought in a dozen states and the rest forgotten. So no, I can't see it being a popular cause.
Because candidates spend so much time in North Dakota as is at the moment.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
Mr. Fletcher, sounds a bit like Jeb Bush. Throwing money at the campaigns didn't work for either of them.
Jeb! was such a lacklustre guy - even if you liked his calm demeanour - he never came across as someone who'd fight for his country. He was Hammond. When Trump nicknamed him 'low energy' it killed him and it framed his whole personality as undynamic/dull/no change/boring.
When the pollsters were capturing massive popular demand for change - it's not surprising that he was the wrong chap in the wrong election.
EDIT - when you need to add a ! to your own name says it all.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
History is written by the winner -- it is only last year we were told big data beat the ground game in GE2015. We must be careful not to take at face value that everything Trump (or the Conservatives or SNP) did led directly to victory.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
Amazing how alike this campaign has been to the one in "Scandal", where the Republican candidate was elected President on the votes of hacking altering voting machiners in one County of Ohio. Then there was the male candidate in the latest election, who of course was one of those involved setting up the fraud in that state, a "likeness" to Donald. By the way I just love "Scandal"
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
I can't recall the last time I read a UK newspaper political article beyond a tweeted headline - it's been about a month.
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.
Obama must read pb -- we've mentioned on-and-off over the past decade or more research that found Democrat and Republican voters have not only different opinions (which you'd expect) but also their own facts -- different things they believe to be true.
The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
I think it is outrageous that the British and American mainstream media do not report the news in the way that Plato would like it reported.
Fancy pointing out that Donald Trump is a serial liar, has embraced white supremacists and anti-semites, has sexually assaulted women, openly mocked the disabled and defrauded many thousands of ordinary Americans. It's as if he were running for public office or something. And as for his backing from the Ku Klux Klan? That is not something that anyone should know about.
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.
Mostly not, actually. In the majority of cases, it is moderates who retain control of local and regional party machinery. There are some exceptions - such as Leeds Central - but if you look at recent internal Labour election results in which you need to be in the room to vote the far left is being beaten much more often than it wins.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.
GOP was in turmoil -- remember Trump beat the GOP establishment as well as Hillary.
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
I would expect more states to engage in voter suppression.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
There's a study out there on undocumented immigrant participation in elections, I'll try and find it later. At the rare found NV could have been affected by it.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
Are large numbers of people really committing felonies that would result in deportation if detected, and could be detected by anybody checking their names on a publicly available register? It's hard enough getting people to vote at the best of times, so getting them to put everything on the line for it would be a serious feat of persuasion.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.
The GOP was in turmoil. Trump's data team thought they had lost until Florida came in and they reran their projections with spiked rural turnout and saw they would win.
What we didn't know was the Dem campaign was fucking attrocious and was failing to address problem states.
Also the Florida chair manager to get some time with Trump post hurricane and convinced him to allocate resources for GOTV which were previously not there.
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
Woody Allen foresaw the baseball bat on Nazi issue decades ago in the film 'Manhattan':
Isaac Davis [Woody Allen]: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
I guess the difference is Woody didn't publish anyone's actual address.
Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.
Mostly not, actually. In the majority of cases, it is moderates who retain control of local and regional party machinery. There are some exceptions - such as Leeds Central - but if you look at recent internal Labour election results in which you need to be in the room to vote the far left is being beaten much more often than it wins.
Thanks SO. I was extrapolating from one data point!
The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.
However: non-electronic systems can be nearly as bad; that is why we have so many rules about the way they are conducted. I've read reports in the past from other countries of ballot boxes with broken seals being counted; ballot stuffing; of boxes being 'lost'; and the really common one of voter intimidation within the polling station.
And that leaves out all the other ways authoritarian regimes get their way; for instance the Syrian / Egyptian / elsewhere method of 'banning' popular opposition parties. Whilst it may be necessary to occasionally ban parties, it's something that needs doing with care.
BTW, what's the title of your book, when's it due out, and where can I get it from?
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the said, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
It is pretty obvious (and something that the alt.right seem surprisingly unbothered by) that Russia attempted to manipulate the presidential election via hacking the DNC, Podesta and also via Wikileaks and Fancy Bears etc. It would not be a great stretch to interfere directly with voting machines. Admiral Rogers of the NSA has openly described the interference as unprecedented:
I'm not particularly tech savvy, but are these voting machines connected to the internet? If they are standalone devices then remote hacking would be rather difficult!
They're not connected to the internet but somebody has to make the firmware that goes on them, and that somebody is connected to internet. Juniper firewall firmware was backdoored for years, and that's expensive corporate gear designed by crypto experts, whereas voting machines are pieces of poo made by the lowest politically-connected bidder.
The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.
It's rigged I tell you, it's rigged - said the man with orange hair.
Just received an e mail from Lord Ashcroft with his analysis on the Presidential election and it absolutely identifies the reasons for the Democrats failure. I would recommend everyone with an interest in both Brexit and the US election reads it. It is titled
'If you don’t listen to the voters, someone else will': the real lesson of Trump
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
Woody Allen foresaw the baseball bat on Nazi issue decades ago in the film 'Manhattan':
Isaac Davis [Woody Allen]: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
I guess the difference is Woody didn't publish anyone's actual address.
The only Woody Allen film I like is Sleeper. I thought it was well ahead of its time 40yrs ago.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
@JoeMurphyLondon: Interesting...No 10 briefed a May quote to Cabinet about the Autumn Statement but not a Chancellor quote. No 10 getting in on the act...
Guess like many Latinos, many Muslims wanted to live in America not where they left after all.
"A poll released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Tuesday reveals president-elect Donald Trump received nearly three times as many Muslim votes as Republican nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.
According to CAIR, “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” an exit poll of more than 2,000 registered Muslim voters found that 13 percent chose Trump as opposed to 4.4 percent for Romney.
“Muslim were more energized and engaged this election than ever before, turning out in record numbers,” CAIR Director of Government Affairs Department Robert McCaw said."
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong.
George Osborne @George_Osborne 4h4 hours ago Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead PS THERE IS NO MOMEY
The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
I wonder if Osborne will a) be there, b) make a statement; c) make a supportive statement.
George Osborne @George_Osborne 4h4 hours ago Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead PS THERE IS NO MONEY
"Hateful notes and emails allegedly sent to a North Park University student were “fabricated,” the school’s president said Tuesday in a statement, and the woman who claimed they were aimed toward her is no longer enrolled at the school.
“We are confident there is no further threat of repeated intolerance to any member of our campus community stemming from this recent incident,” the university’s President David Parkyn said in a statement.
@GuardianHeather: Prudence is back! The PM's spox tells us this will be "prudent and balanced" autumn statement, with focus on tackling productivity. #AS2016
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
Just received an e mail from Lord Ashcroft with his analysis on the Presidential election and it absolutely identifies the reasons for the Democrats failure. I would recommend everyone with an interest in both Brexit and the US election reads it. It is titled
'If you don’t listen to the voters, someone else will': the real lesson of Trump
I thought this was spot on - it's the immediate balancing act.
Bill Mitchell The "art" of this deal is to make Hillary pay without turning her into a martyr for the Left, which they so desperately need right now.
The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
There's a big difference between thinking something likely to happen and betting on it. That's where the price comes in. Certainly on Brexit there were a lot of people calling it a decent value bet, especially in the final week. Trump, not so much (though again that was a function of price: if he'd been 8/1 I expect more people would have backed him).
The miraculous bit where everybody wins is because on election nights Betfair fills up with clueless punters who are just betting on what they see on the telly, and understandably PB takes them to the cleaners.
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen. 98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong. Time will tell which is most correct.
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there. If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
You did, and for that you should be given the credit due.
Big Data is critically important but only if you get the messages right and send them to the right people. Had Hillary's team done that (or had she simply been a better, more inspiring candidate), she'd have won - and in that case, the debate about cultural values would be very different from what it is now.
But although it was extremely close, she didn't win and the narrative is what it is.
Comments
Doesn't make it right though, and poor show to the Telegraph for using language like that for the headline of what's currently their front page story.
"Yiannopoulos started a college scholarship fund exclusively for white men, initially as a joke, 'something that would wind up social-justice warriors,' he acknowledged.
It is very real now, however. The Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant has $125,000 in funds, collected from private donors, which will be disbursed in $2,500 grants in 2017—2018 exclusively to 'white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic-minority classmates'.
He is trying to rebalance a system that is heavily weighted in favor of those who seek to classify themselves as minorities or 'special' or 'different'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960800/KATIE-HOPKINS-College-liberals-think-people-voted-Trump-Brexit-dumb-letting-brainwash-society-s-stupid.html#ixzz4Qos6w41b
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Things should have been left well alone, meddling always causes trouble, esp if the meddlers don't know what they are doing.
There's rumours abound of electoral college delegates being targeted ahead of their meeting, in a last attempt to stop them confirming Trump as president. Legal but undemocratic, very much like that anti-Brexit campaigners in the UK.
Don't try to spin.
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.
http://pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/
They are also threatened by the numbers. Breitbart boasted of 41million unique hits over the US election campaign.
What if the alt right sites started to capture a larger share of the shrinking pool of advertising revenues?
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
This is just the final few tail flaps of the landed fish. It's done and ready for the fat fryer.
Have a nice day......
Once Trump is sworn in on 20th of January, that's it, game over.
I said it weeks ago, but this is a massive culture war between left and right - and isn't going to go away. American Right activists are now using all the dirty tricks of the Left - without the thuggery.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
And if they do, you might as well abandon the Electoral College. And have the election fought in a dozen states and the rest forgotten. So no, I can't see it being a popular cause.
https://youtu.be/IWh4a98Fwlc
Snowflakes.....
This is so amusing
Jared Wyand
When the CEO of twitter is trying to delete everyone with an opposing view and accidentally suspends himself
Hang in there @jack https://t.co/nbac9i1YYT
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/techandgadgets/twitter-boss-jack-dorsey-has-his-own-account-suspended-a3402456.html
What rot. An investment is where you put money away in the expectation of receiving more later - the Telegraph are being deliberately thick here.
No speech market I can see, as yet.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
Where do they find these people?
When the pollsters were capturing massive popular demand for change - it's not surprising that he was the wrong chap in the wrong election.
EDIT - when you need to add a ! to your own name says it all.
By the way I just love "Scandal"
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
I can't recall the last time I read a UK newspaper political article beyond a tweeted headline - it's been about a month.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-news-stories-from-the-mainstream-media/
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962682/amp/Politico-editor-resigns-calling-baseball-bat-attacks-white-nationalist-leader-posting-home-address-Facebook.html
Fancy pointing out that Donald Trump is a serial liar, has embraced white supremacists and anti-semites, has sexually assaulted women, openly mocked the disabled and defrauded many thousands of ordinary Americans. It's as if he were running for public office or something. And as for his backing from the Ku Klux Klan? That is not something that anyone should know about.
What we didn't know was the Dem campaign was fucking attrocious and was failing to address problem states.
Also the Florida chair manager to get some time with Trump post hurricane and convinced him to allocate resources for GOTV which were previously not there.
Woody Allen foresaw the baseball bat on Nazi issue decades ago in the film 'Manhattan':
Isaac Davis [Woody Allen]: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
I guess the difference is Woody didn't publish anyone's actual address.
It's rigged I tell you, it's rigged - said the man with orange hair.
'If you don’t listen to the voters, someone else will': the real lesson of Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRLeYaut3o
I wonder if Osborne will a) be there, b) make a statement; c) make a supportive statement.
"A poll released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Tuesday reveals president-elect Donald Trump received nearly three times as many Muslim votes as Republican nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.
According to CAIR, “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” an exit poll of more than 2,000 registered Muslim voters found that 13 percent chose Trump as opposed to 4.4 percent for Romney.
“Muslim were more energized and engaged this election than ever before, turning out in record numbers,” CAIR Director of Government Affairs Department Robert McCaw said."
http://www.infowars.com/trump-nearly-triples-number-of-muslim-voters-compared-to-romney/
Time will tell which is most correct.
Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead
PS THERE IS NO MOMEY
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead
PS THERE IS NO MONEY
"Hateful notes and emails allegedly sent to a North Park University student were “fabricated,” the school’s president said Tuesday in a statement, and the woman who claimed they were aimed toward her is no longer enrolled at the school.
“We are confident there is no further threat of repeated intolerance to any member of our campus community stemming from this recent incident,” the university’s President David Parkyn said in a statement.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/north-park-fabricated-notes-402556366.html
Bill Mitchell
The "art" of this deal is to make Hillary pay without turning her into a martyr for the Left, which they so desperately need right now.
The miraculous bit where everybody wins is because on election nights Betfair fills up with clueless punters who are just betting on what they see on the telly, and understandably PB takes them to the cleaners.
Big Data is critically important but only if you get the messages right and send them to the right people. Had Hillary's team done that (or had she simply been a better, more inspiring candidate), she'd have won - and in that case, the debate about cultural values would be very different from what it is now.
But although it was extremely close, she didn't win and the narrative is what it is.