I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 54% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected
54 to 35 is a 19 point gap.
Sanders will be 77 in 2020. He will not be standing again. I have my doubts about Warren given she'll be 71.
For your last sentence, don't you mean 'not be re-elected'? The only President since the war to improve at the midterms was GWB, and he won relegation. Everyone else suffered net losses, including his father and Jimmy Carter.
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
It's what's going to happen though. I don't think there is any place for the likes of Cooper in the future Labour party. Its activist base is stuffed full of idiots who think like Laura Pidcock. Incidentally, her rise was not accidental, she was one of Unite's chosen candidates for a safe seat.
Even Corbyn comes across as a genius compared with her.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.
Consett closed in 1980 and had been losing money for some time....In 1980-1981, British Steel lost a staggering £1 billion on turnover of £3 billion, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records* so 'blaming Thatcher and the Tories' is simplistic drivel.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 54% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected
54 to 35 is a 19 point gap.
Sanders will be 77 in 2020. He will not be standing again. I have my doubts about Warren given she'll be 71.
For your last sentence, don't you mean 'not be re-elected'? The only President since the war to improve at the midterms was GWB, and he won relegation. Everyone else suffered net losses, including his father and Jimmy Carter.
Sorry it should have been 49% to 35% now corrected.
You have to go back to 1974 when the Democrats won a huge landslide after Watergate to find a bigger lead in a House of Representatives election than 14% so forget the GOP holding the House next year, they will be doing well to avoid a Democratic Tsunami.
Berlusconi could well be Italian PM again at 80 next year so don't rule Sanders out completely but I think he will endorse Warren in the end.
Yes apologies not re elected (typing too fast). George W Bush of course had a 90% approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11 which boosted the GOP in 2002, Trump's approval rating is barely a third of that.
Plus don't underestimate Pelosi, she is more ruthless and effective than Ryan, her base is more enthusiastic about her than Ryan's base is about him which matters in midterms where only around a third vote and she also has gained the House before in 2006.
Re. Laura Pidcock. It's clear that on the whole PBers don't like her, or what she says, but she has a distinct gift for self-publicity and can certainly enthuse the base. Young and with a safe seat, she's going to be around for a while: one to watch in my view.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
yeah. Pardoning that racist in arizona is hardly pivoting to the centre
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
No
Whining about other people stopping him doing stuff is more valuable than actually doing stuff.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
He’s a great one for executive orders where possible though.
Mind, he might just assume that the Dems winningf the House is ‘fake news'
Sorry it should have been 49% to 35% now corrected.
You have to go back to 1974 when the Democrats won a huge landslide after Watergate to find a bigger lead in a House of Representatives election than 14% so forget the GOP holding the House next year, they will be doing well to avoid a Democratic Tsunami.
Berlusconi could well be Italian PM again at 80 next year so don't rule Sanders out completely but I think he will endorse Warren in the end.
Yes apologies not re elected (typing too fast). George W Bush of course had a 90% approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11 which boosted the GOP in 2002, Trump's approval rating is barely a third of that.
Plus don't underestimate Pelosi, she is more ruthless and effective than Ryan, her base is more enthusiastic about her than Ryan's base is about him which matters in midterms where only around a third vote and she also had gained the House before in 2006.
Well I agree if the Democrats can't retake the House with all factors in their favour then they really will be in strife. On average in such circumstances the opposition gains 33 seats, which would be enough (24 required).
If they can't it will suggest that their malaise is not just about Trump - that it goes deeper.
I do rule out Sanders. Completely, utterly and totally. Berlusconi is a different case and has a different path to power via his wealth and party base. Sanders doesn't have any of the three. Moreover Berlusconi will not have his finger on a nuclear button and probably doesn't intend to do any work anyway. Sanders is conscientious and I think he knows he would be too old for what's needed, which includes two separate national elections.
F1: from the BBC livefeed: "What can Lewis Hamilton do? Not enough to beat Kimi Raikkonen. His flying lap on the ultra-softs is two tenths of a second slower than the Finn.
Qualifying could well be closer than Friday suggested..."
Quite content if that's the case.
Edited extra bit: some chance of rain buggering things up. Hard to tell.
Re. Laura Pidcock. It's clear that on the whole PBers don't like her, or what she says, but she has a distinct gift for self-publicity and can certainly enthuse the base. Young and with a safe seat, she's going to be around for a while: one to watch in my view.
The Chauncey Gardener of the Labour Party?
In that case, may God help us all.
Edit - incidentally I don't think NW Durham is as safe as it used to be. Pidcock may have a 9,000 majority and 52% of the vote but she also has something not seen for many years if ever - one clear challenger, whom she might well underestimate due to her visceral loathing of said challenger's party.
Here’s how the Tories should choose leaders The final decision must be restored to MPs because the current nonsensical system gives too much power to activists
The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views. Too many people seem to have an inbuilt antipathy to Trump and the GOP, rather than assessing the administration on its competency. Those who criticised Trump for condemning the vile Antifa equally with the racist far right fall into this category.
Anyway, the UK has its own blonde buffoon from NY who is a walking disaster - the Foreign Secretary.
It is quite possible by 2019 PM Johnson will be meeting President Trump at the White House
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Thing is, that Clinton as President appears to have been meant to bring through the next generation of promising young Democrats via her cabinet, so they could push up some talent. This is a significant consideration as they don't have many governorships and their age profile in the senate is quite high.
Now she's lost, there's no platform for these people to strut their stuff and build up some momentum. By contrast, it's the Republicans that have locked out almost every significant post in US politics apart from 16 governorships, one of whom is an independent. And of those governors a number are too old (Jerry Brown) too conservative to appeal to the base (John Bel Edwards) or too liberal to appeal to the swing voters (Cuomo).
So they have pretty significant problems in finding a candidate. My guess would be that the primary shortlist will include Cuomo, Kaine, Edwards and Warren. It is also just possible Evan Bayh might make a comeback given the paucity of the field. But to pick a winner, and see that winner defeating the Republican candidate whom I must confess I am assuming will not be Trump (who I think will be the first incumbent Republican to be refused renomination by his party since Grant in 1876) is a much longer stretch.
However, if Obama could pop up from nowhere...
2024 Moulton has a decent shot if he stops irritating people
Re. Laura Pidcock. It's clear that on the whole PBers don't like her, or what she says, but she has a distinct gift for self-publicity and can certainly enthuse the base. Young and with a safe seat, she's going to be around for a while: one to watch in my view.
Sorry it should have been 49% to 35% now corrected.
You have to go back to 1974 when the Democrats won a huge landslide after Watergate to find a bigger lead in a House of Representatives election than 14% so forget the GOP holding the House next year, they will be doing well to avoid a Democratic Tsunami.
Berlusconi could well be Italian PM again at 80 next year so don't rule Sanders out completely but I think he will endorse Warren in the end.
Yes apologies not re elected (typing too fast). George W Bush of course had a 90% approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11 which boosted the GOP in 2002, Trump's approval rating is barely a third of that.
Plus don't underestimate Pelosi, she is more ruthless and effective than Ryan, her base is more enthusiastic about her than Ryan's base is about him which matters in midterms where only around a third vote and she also had gained the House before in 2006.
Well I agree if the Democrats can't retake the House with all factors in their favour then they really will be in strife. On average in such circumstances the opposition gains 33 seats, which would be enough (24 required).
If they can't it will suggest that their malaise is not just about Trump - that it goes deeper.
I do rule out Sanders. Completely, utterly and totally. Berlusconi is a different case and has a different path to power via his wealth and party base. Sanders doesn't have any of the three. Moreover Berlusconi will not have his finger on a nuclear button and probably doesn't intend to do any work anyway. Sanders is conscientious and I think he knows he would be too old for what's needed, which includes two separate national elections.
Midterm elections are almost always referendums on the president, normally protest votes, what the opposition party says or does is less important than in presidential elections.
If it is not Sanders the Democrats will almost certainly nominate Warren in 2020
er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
His policys are blocked anyway now, and GOP controls both houses
The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views. Too many people seem to have an inbuilt antipathy to Trump and the GOP, rather than assessing the administration on its competency. Those who criticised Trump for condemning the vile Antifa equally with the racist far right fall into this category.
Anyway, the UK has its own blonde buffoon from NY who is a walking disaster - the Foreign Secretary.
It is quite possible by 2019 PM Johnson will be meeting President Trump at the White House
It’s the day here; has been for some time. Do you often have nightmares in broad daylight!
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
No
Whining about other people stopping him doing stuff is more valuable than actually doing stuff.
Like the SNP.
The US government is different to Scotland where the SNP can advance their agenda at Holyrood unhindered with the Greens, in the US by contrast in domestic policy at least the House of Representatives is arguably more powerful than the President, though in foreign policy it is the President and Senate who have most influence
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
He’s a great one for executive orders where possible though.
Mind, he might just assume that the Dems winningf the House is ‘fake news'
Executive Orders can be overturned by the judiciary and have to have some basis in statute
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
Surely that requires Trump, and to a lesser extent perhaps the Republicans as a whole, to, in your words, pivot to the centre. I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
If the Democrats do win the House next year he will have no choice but to pivot more to the centre otherwise Pelosi will simply block any domestic policy he puts forward
His policys are blocked anyway now, and GOP controls both houses
Here’s how the Tories should choose leaders The final decision must be restored to MPs because the current nonsensical system gives too much power to activists
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Thing is, that Clinton as President appears to have been meant to bring through the next generation of promising young Democrats via her cabinet, so they could push up some talent. This is a significant consideration as they don't have many governorships and their age profile in the senate is quite high.
Now she's lost, there's no platform for these people to strut their stuff and build up some momentum. By contrast, it's the Republicans that have locked out almost every significant post in US politics apart from 16 governorships, one of whom is an independent. And of those governors a number are too old (Jerry Brown) too conservative to appeal to the base (John Bel Edwards) or too liberal to appeal to the swing voters (Cuomo).
So they have pretty significant problems in finding a candidate. My guess would be that the primary shortlist will include Cuomo, Kaine, Edwards and Warren. It is also just possible Evan Bayh might make a comeback given the paucity of the field. But to pick a winner, and see that winner defeating the Republican candidate whom I must confess I am assuming will not be Trump (who I think will be the first incumbent Republican to be refused renomination by his party since Grant in 1876) is a much longer stretch.
However, if Obama could pop up from nowhere...
2024 Moulton has a decent shot if he stops irritating people
Note: Retweets may appear differently in third-party applications, and will show up in apps only if they are using Twitter's Retweet API. Many apps have built in their own version of Retweeting—those Tweets are not treated as official Retweets on Twitter. To test, try Retweeting from a third-party app, then check your profile on the web.
Nothing quite like getting up twice during the night to take the dog out (upset stomach). Mind you, her predecessor used to get terrible diarrhoea that would take 1-2 hours to clean up, so...
Mr. Herdson, interesting article but don't you think a Republican challenger might arise.
There is but I doubt he'd displace Trump as nominee. Trump retains the strong support of a vocal minority. That minority isn't huge but it should be enough to see him through the lower-turnout elections (often on restricted, GOP-only, franchises).
His new twitter account has been deleted, so the numerous allegations of brutality against the Greek police contained thereon have also vanished. Staines has also pulled all coverage of the affair from his website. So it's a bit difficult to find out what's happening. However, if even the egregious Paul Staines felt he couldn't keep going with this story it must have got pretty nasty.
I do however think it highly improbable that Chapman will be launching a new political party a fortnight on Saturday or at any other time.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Nothing quite like getting up twice during the night to take the dog out (upset stomach). Mind you, her predecessor used to get terrible diarrhoea that would take 1-2 hours to clean up, so...
Mr. Herdson, interesting article but don't you think a Republican challenger might arise.
There is but I doubt he'd displace Trump as nominee. Trump retains the strong support of a vocal minority. That minority isn't huge but it should be enough to see him through the lower-turnout elections (often on restricted, GOP-only, franchises).
I think that might depend on how bad the midterms are for the Republicans. If they keep their majority, I agree that sufficient numbers of the hierarchy are craven enough to stick with Trump to make any challenge unviable. If sufficient numbers lose their seats, then the terms of trade change - and they might even see it in their interests to allow impeachment.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper has been linking up with Kasich apparently. Possible joint indie run?
His new twitter account has been deleted, so the numerous allegations of brutality against the Greek police contained thereon have also vanished. Staines has also pulled all coverage of the affair from his website. So it's a bit difficult to find out what's happening. However, if even the egregious Paul Staines felt he couldn't keep going with this story it must have got pretty nasty.
I do however think it highly improbable that Chapman will be launching a new political party a fortnight on Saturday or at any other time.
He looked absolutely terrible in the photos on the new account. Like he hadn't slept for weeks.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Trump is effective at destruction - pulling the US out of things (though even there, not as much as he'd promised, as with the Afghanistan policy reversal), but he's not good at getting stuff done.
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president. If we're taking that as 'success' then we're setting the bar incredibly low. And even there, Anthony Kennedy might well be delaying retirement to prevent another Trump appointment.
On the executive orders, how many of these have been challenged and defeated in courts? I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar challenge to the transgender Order, a challenge that might well succeed as it's clearly discriminatory and it's hard to argue that such discrimination has just cause.
Nothing quite like getting up twice during the night to take the dog out (upset stomach). Mind you, her predecessor used to get terrible diarrhoea that would take 1-2 hours to clean up, so...
Mr. Herdson, interesting article but don't you think a Republican challenger might arise.
There is but I doubt he'd displace Trump as nominee. Trump retains the strong support of a vocal minority. That minority isn't huge but it should be enough to see him through the lower-turnout elections (often on restricted, GOP-only, franchises).
I think that might depend on how bad the midterms are for the Republicans. If they keep their majority, I agree that sufficient numbers of the hierarchy are craven enough to stick with Trump to make any challenge unviable. If sufficient numbers lose their seats, then the terms of trade change - and they might even see it in their interests to allow impeachment.
Ryan and McConnell have far lower approval ratings with GOP voters than Trump
Just 30% of 2016 Trump voters approve of Ryan and an astonishingly low 15% of 2016 Trump voters approve of McConnell. The Democrats are up for the midterms, Trump voters clearly not http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
There are some points that could be made - for example, the DDR and BDR were not directly comparable economically so cannot be considered an experiment with a clear outcome. One side was pillaged by the victors, one side was paid by them, which probably had a fairly significant impact on that 70% wealth disparity.
However he is quite right to call out Milne on writing articles in support of the DDR. It's rather an old interview that the author has chosen to criticise, but I commented on it and a related Guardian article negatively at the time as the fantasy of a very stupid man who wanted to trample on the faces of the poor because they dared to want some of the things he as a millionaire took for granted. I must confess though I could not match the eloquence of this commentator from the DDR itself.
The key thing about the likes of Corbyn is that it is possible he really does mean well. I don't know him personally and the fervour of those defenders who do suggest a man capable of charm and poise. But as long as he hangs out with the likes of Milne - and let's not forget Milne is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst of his friends - we have to assume his politics is basically malevolent, even if not deliberately so.
But some are worse - Pidcock, for example, who has all the malevolence and none of the charm or poise.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I think despite its unexpectedly good performance this year, Labour is still in real trouble. It has a lot of work to do to get back to sanity.
I am off out for a bike ride. Have a good weekend.
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Trump is effective at destruction - pulling the US out of things (though even there, not as much as he'd promised, as with the Afghanistan policy reversal), but he's not good at getting stuff done.
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president. If we're taking that as 'success' then we're setting the bar incredibly low. And even there, Anthony Kennedy might well be delaying retirement to prevent another Trump appointment.
On the executive orders, how many of these have been challenged and defeated in courts? I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar challenge to the transgender Order, a challenge that might well succeed as it's clearly discriminatory and it's hard to argue that such discrimination has just cause.
Yup the ACLU just said 'see you in court', so they are challenging it legally
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a left liberal populist against him who may actually be less appealing to independents than even Clinton who despite her skeletons was at least a centrist and let us not forget won the popular vote
His new twitter account has been deleted, so the numerous allegations of brutality against the Greek police contained thereon have also vanished. Staines has also pulled all coverage of the affair from his website. So it's a bit difficult to find out what's happening. However, if even the egregious Paul Staines felt he couldn't keep going with this story it must have got pretty nasty.
I do however think it highly improbable that Chapman will be launching a new political party a fortnight on Saturday or at any other time.
Yes, Guido went from giving him both barrels to wishing him and his family well. Suggests that he’s genuinely not well, rather than just being an idiot.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a left liberal populist against him who may actually be less appealing to independents than even Clinton who despite her skeletons was at least a centrist and let us not forget won the popular vote
When electing a POTUS the popular vote doesn’t count. As we saw last year. The Dem strategy has to be to win at least some of the big states (which they did) and a reasonable number of the small ones, which was where their strategy went awry.
Third practice makes it look like a three horse race for pole. That being so, I've decided to lay Hamilton at 1.54. Not an easy decision, but we'll find out soon enough whether it's wise or silly.
The risk with the gerrymandering is that to maximise the gain you need to give your own side modest but pretty safe majorities whilst packing your opposition with huge majorities in a minimal number of seats.
If we do get a real anti GOP wave, the losses in gerrymandered states could be significant to catastrophic.
That's true. However, it would have to be a really massive win by historic standards. As I mention in the article, US politics is becoming more divided and there are fewer swing voters. It is possible that there could be large (ex-)GOP abstentions in 2018 but the divisions on values is becoming starker so those who backed Trump in 2016 are unlikely to switch in big numbers easily. For reference, these are the ten biggest wins by either party in the last 30 years:
For the Democrats to win by much more than 10% ought to be a huge ask, on that record (I've not gone back beyond 30 years because House politics was very different before 1994). Perhaps Trump will give them the opportunity for a new realignment election. I wouldn't rule it out. But the more likely outcome is that they'll pile up the votes but struggle with the seats.
There are some points that could be made - for example, the DDR and BDR were not directly comparable economically so cannot be considered an experiment with a clear outcome. One side was pillaged by the victors, one side was paid by them, which probably had a fairly significant impact on that 70% wealth disparity.
However he is quite right to call out Milne on writing articles in support of the DDR. It's rather an old interview that the author has chosen to criticise, but I commented on it and a related Guardian article negatively at the time as the fantasy of a very stupid man who wanted to trample on the faces of the poor because they dared to want some of the things he as a millionaire took for granted. I must confess though I could not match the eloquence of this commentator from the DDR itself.
The key thing about the likes of Corbyn is that it is possible he really does mean well. I don't know him personally and the fervour of those defenders who do suggest a man capable of charm and poise. But as long as he hangs out with the likes of Milne - and let's not forget Milne is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst of his friends - we have to assume his politics is basically malevolent, even if not deliberately so.
But some are worse - Pidcock, for example, who has all the malevolence and none of the charm or poise.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I think despite its unexpectedly good performance this year, Labour is still in real trouble. It has a lot of work to do to get back to sanity.
I am off out for a bike ride. Have a good weekend.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a vote
When electing a POTUS the popular vote doesn’t count. As we saw last year. The Dem strategy has to be to win at least some of the big states (which they did) and a reasonable number of the small ones, which was where their strategy went awry.
True but Hillary only lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 1% each, had she won those 3 she would have won the Electoral College and the Presidency.
I think a Trump v Warren race would see Trump do better in the likes of California, where he even lost Orange County to Hillary and thus the popular vote but the Electoral College could be closer if Warren can win back 1 or 2 Midwestern swing states
er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.
And the BBQs, don't forget the BBQs.
BBQs are for the masses unless you get your buttler to do the cooking.
I think he's speaking about the barbeques of babies.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a left liberal populist against him who may actually be less appealing to independents than even Clinton who despite her skeletons was at least a centrist and let us not forget won the popular vote
Depends on the candidate
Bernie isnt crazy like trump.
this is interesting on Trumps declining support from his reluctant voters
The risk with the gerrymandering is that to maximise the gain you need to give your own side modest but pretty safe majorities whilst packing your opposition with huge majorities in a minimal number of seats.
If we do get a real anti GOP wave, the losses in gerrymandered states could be significant to catastrophic.
That's true. However, it would have to be a really massive win by historic standards. As I mention in the article, US politics is becoming more divided and there are fewer swing voters. It is possible that there could be large (ex-)GOP abstentions in 2018 but the divisions on values is becoming starker so those who backed Trump in 2016 are unlikely to switch in big numbers easily. For reference, these are the ten biggest wins by either party in the last 30 years:
For the Democrats to win by much more than 10% ought to be a huge ask, on that record (I've not gone back beyond 30 years because House politics was very different before 1994). Perhaps Trump will give them the opportunity for a new realignment election. I wouldn't rule it out. But the more likely outcome is that they'll pile up the votes but struggle with the seats.
The latest PPP poll has the Democrats up by 14% for the midterms, bigger than all the wins in the House over the last 30 years and near the post Watergate 1974 elections.
If that margin was repeated on election day it would be ironic if the GOP gerrymandering only led them to an even more crushing landslide defeat losing districts they have held for decades rather than saving their bacon as they had hoped
Note: Retweets may appear differently in third-party applications, and will show up in apps only if they are using Twitter's Retweet API. Many apps have built in their own version of Retweeting—those Tweets are not treated as official Retweets on Twitter. To test, try Retweeting from a third-party app, then check your profile on the web.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a vote
When electing a POTUS the popular vote doesn’t count. As we saw last year. The Dem strategy has to be to win at least some of the big states (which they did) and a reasonable number of the small ones, which was where their strategy went awry.
True but Hillary only lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 1% each, had she won those 3 she would have won the Electoral College and the Presidency.
I think a Trump v Warren race would see Trump do better in the likes of California, where he even lost Orange County to Hillary and thus the popular vote but the Electoral College could be closer if Warren can win back 1 or 2 Midwestern swing states
I’d be surprised if Trump did that much better in California.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
You are cherry-picking polls there. The PPP poll is the only one of the last ten to give the Democrats a double-digit lead. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong but you'd be brave to go with that rather than the rest of the field. In any case, the most recent poll is from YouGov and gives a Dem lead of +6.
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Trump is effective at destruction - pulling the US out of things (though even there, not as much as he'd promised, as with the Afghanistan policy reversal), but he's not good at getting stuff done.
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president...
It really isn't, given the long term political consequences of any single appointment. Similarly, if you look at the detail of his federal court picks (and the outsize number of them who have clerked for Thomas), his appointments are consequential. Changing the political balance of America's highest courts, perhaps for a generation, won't make him a successful president - but it will make him a consequential one (and it is also a matter of great importance to his republican supporters).
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a left liberal populist against him who may actually be less appealing to independents than even Clinton who despite her skeletons was at least a centrist and let us not forget won the popular vote
Depends on the candidate
Bernie isnt crazy like trump.
this is interesting on Trumps declining support from his reluctant voters
Note: Retweets may appear differently in third-party applications, and will show up in apps only if they are using Twitter's Retweet API. Many apps have built in their own version of Retweeting—those Tweets are not treated as official Retweets on Twitter. To test, try Retweeting from a third-party app, then check your profile on the web.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Running Hillary II would be the best way to lose the election, particularly after playing to Trump's victim-complex (and, more relevantly, many of his supporters' victim-complexes).
I disagree that Hickenlooper is too centrist. Firstly, Sanders lost. Yes, he got close but he still lost: the centre can win nominations. Secondly, Hillary was a rotten campaigner and she still won. Yes, she won with a load of establishment endorsements and money (not that Sanders was underfunded), but she overcame that. A better campaigner with less baggage should be able to do likewise.
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more
You are cherry-picking polls there. The PPP poll is the only one of the last ten to give the Democrats a double-digit lead. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong but you'd be brave to go with that rather than the rest of the field. In any case, the most recent poll is from YouGov and gives a Dem lead of +6.
The PPP poll covered the same timeframe as the yougov poll. In any case 'gerrymandered' seats are overrated, it only works when the 2 parties are almost neck and neck, the only poll I have seen of competitive districts had most falling to the Democrats, 2018 is heading for a wave election and the fact the Democrats already have a 6% lead even with yougov, the same lead the GOP had in 2014 when they won by 247 to 188 suggests even 6% will likely be enough for Democratic control
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Trump is effective at destruction - pulling the US out of things (though even there, not as much as he'd promised, as with the Afghanistan policy reversal), but he's not good at getting stuff done.
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president...
It really isn't, given the long term political consequences of any single appointment. Similarly, if you look at the detail of his federal court picks (and the outsize number of them who have clerked for Thomas), his appointments are consequential. Changing the political balance of America's highest courts, perhaps for a generation, won't make him a successful president - but it will make him a consequential one (and it is also a matter of great importance to his republican supporters).
I agree that his federal nominations are of consequence, though I'd stand by my comment that the fact of their nomination is a bread-and-butter issue, even if the detail of them isn't necessarily. Presidents nominate and invariably their nominations go through when Congress is controlled by the same party. Only two Supreme Court nominations in the last 30 years have failed to be endorsed, for example (and one of those was widely viewed as inadequate on grounds of experience and competency).
But the original question was about his effectiveness and my point is that getting a court nominee endorsed is no great mark of effectiveness.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Running Hillary II would be the best way to lose the election, particularly after playing to Trump's victim-complex (and, more relevantly, many of his supporters' victim-complexes).
I disagree that Hickenlooper is too centrist. Firstly, Sanders lost. Yes, he got close but he still lost: the centre can win nominations. Secondly, Hillary was a rotten campaigner and she still won. Yes, she won with a load of establishment endorsements and money (not that Sanders was underfunded), but she overcame that. A better campaigner with less baggage should be able to do likewise.
Sanders came from nowhere to almost beat the centrist Hillary despite the latter's vast warchest and endoresements. The latest Democratic Primary poll has it Sanders 20% Clinton 17% Warren 16% Biden 15% Booker 8%.
So Sanders and Warren combined lead the field comfortably, though Hillary almost certainly won't run again
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a vote
When electing a POTUS the popular vote doesn’t count. As we saw last year. The Dem strategy has to be to win at least some of the big states (which they did) and a reasonable number of the small ones, which was where their strategy went awry.
True but Hillary only lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 1% each, had she won those 3 she would have won the Electoral College and the Presidency.
I think a Trump v Warren race would see Trump do
I’d be surprised if Trump did that much better in California.
He would certainly win Orange County against Warren
Also, Trump is and wipl continue to blame the GOP in Congress and the House foe his failures
Cpuld mean the Trumpers wont vote for the mid terms
They won't, they could not care less if Ryan loses the Speakership and McConnell the Senate, they will turnout for their boy Trump in 2020 again though
Re. Laura Pidcock. It's clear that on the whole PBers don't like her, or what she says, but she has a distinct gift for self-publicity and can certainly enthuse the base. Young and with a safe seat, she's going to be around for a while: one to watch in my view.
The Chauncey Gardener of the Labour Party?
In that case, may God help us all.
Edit - incidentally I don't think NW Durham is as safe as it used to be. Pidcock may have a 9,000 majority and 52% of the vote but she also has something not seen for many years if ever - one clear challenger, whom she might well underestimate due to her visceral loathing of said challenger's party.
After four years as a local councillor she lost on a 22% swing.
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Trump is effective at destruction - pulling the US out of things (though even there, not as much as he'd promised, as with the Afghanistan policy reversal), but he's not good at getting stuff done.
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president...
It really isn't, given the long term political consequences of any single appointment. Similarly, if you look at the detail of his federal court picks (and the outsize number of them who have clerked for Thomas), his appointments are consequential. Changing the political balance of America's highest courts, perhaps for a generation, won't make him a successful president - but it will make him a consequential one (and it is also a matter of great importance to his republican supporters).
I agree that his federal nominations are of consequence, though I'd stand by my comment that the fact of their nomination is a bread-and-butter issue, even if the detail of them isn't necessarily. Presidents nominate and invariably their nominations go through when Congress is controlled by the same party. Only two Supreme Court nominations in the last 30 years have failed to be endorsed, for example (and one of those was widely viewed as inadequate on grounds of experience and competency).
But the original question was about his effectiveness and my point is that getting a court nominee endorsed is no great mark of effectiveness.
I think Trump has put forward federal judges at around double the rate of Obama, for example - which is understandable when you consider that his interest in bipartisanship is zero, and he is putting forward ideologues that the majority in Congress approve. The mystery is how little effort Democrats in Congress have put in to opposing them.
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
Re. Laura Pidcock. It's clear that on the whole PBers don't like her, or what she says, but she has a distinct gift for self-publicity and can certainly enthuse the base. Young and with a safe seat, she's going to be around for a while: one to watch in my view.
The Chauncey Gardener of the Labour Party?
In that case, may God help us all.
Edit - incidentally I don't think NW Durham is as safe as it used to be. Pidcock may have a 9,000 majority and 52% of the vote but she also has something not seen for many years if ever - one clear challenger, whom she might well underestimate due to her visceral loathing of said challenger's party.
After four years as a local councillor she lost on a 22% swing.
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.
It really shouldn't be beyond the wit of the Democrats to find an equivalent of Romney, who was about as close to 'generic Republican' as you could get. Sure, he lost, but (1) to Obama, where special circumstances applied, and (2) by less than 4%: it was hardly the landslide that the left-inclined media in the UK would have you believe. The Democrat in 2020, by contrast, ought (health, impeachments, tantrums and primaries permitting) to be facing the rather less imposing task of taking on Trump.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
Hickenlooper is too centrist for the Democratic base. Only a populist left liberal like Warren will do. As even you say in your article a Democratic lead of 10% or more as PPP is now showing would see the Democrats take the House (under 10% the current seat structure helps the GOP over 10% it boosts the Democrats).
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Trump needs to get the independents back on side. All the pro nazi stuff and transgender stuff just drives them away. He cant win JUST on his base, and he wont have someone lile Clinton against him
He will likely have a vote
When electing a POTUS the popular vote doesn’t count. As we saw last year. The Dem strategy has to be to win at least some of the big states (which they did) and a reasonable number of the small ones, which was where their strategy went awry.
True but Hillary only lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by less than 1% each, had she won those 3 she would have won the Electoral College and the Presidency.
I think a Trump v Warren race would see Trump do better in the likes of California, where he even lost Orange County to Hillary and thus the popular vote but the Electoral College could be closer if Warren can win back 1 or 2 Midwestern swing states
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
' Transport Minister Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said:
“Our flag is recognised and respected around the world and is something which British people take pride in. I am delighted to see it featured on driving licences.
“We are bringing the country together. Adding our national flag to British driving licences is a true celebration of one nation Britain.” '
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
' Transport Minister Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said:
“Our flag is recognised and respected around the world and is something which British people take pride in. I am delighted to see it featured on driving licences.
“We are bringing the country together. Adding our national flag to British driving licences is a true celebration of one nation Britain.” '
Obviously not everyone.
Wiki:
The Butcher's Apron is a pejorative term for the flag, common among Irish republicans,
Probably a joke letter, but there is a serious point there.
Why can't retired brexiteers pick fruit for their pensions?
Non-medical retirement won't be a thing for the kids generation.
And it seems they have the experience of the job. So lets harness that experience.
Reduce the state pensions to allow for their increased earnings capacity, use the money saved (considerably more than £350 million a week) to fund the NHS and everyone's a winner.
Just back from my ride across the Chase to Rugeley. Important news - the pylons are all up for the electrification of the Chase Railway, although the gantries haven't gone on yet.
And some of those hills on the Chase are steeper than a Gordon Brown budget!
F1: ****ing hell. Raikkonen had a serious vibration through qualifying and didn't do his final lap (due to error) on which everyone else markedly improved. He should've been 2nd (outside shot of pole).
I think Brexit might mean Brexit. My new driving licence came this morning and it no longer has the words for "Driving Licence on" it in the all the EU languages and has a very conspicuous Butcher's Apron on the right hand side which I covered with a piece of black tape.
You must have had a bad time in the RN
I loved it. They were they only years of my life that had any meaning. It is possible to serve honourably without being a jingoistic twat.
Comments
Sanders will be 77 in 2020. He will not be standing again. I have my doubts about Warren given she'll be 71.
For your last sentence, don't you mean 'not be re-elected'? The only President since the war to improve at the midterms was GWB, and he won relegation. Everyone else suffered net losses, including his father and Jimmy Carter.
Even Corbyn comes across as a genius compared with her.
I suspect that Trumps attitude will still be that he’s President and is being let down by lesser mortals.
You have to go back to 1974 when the Democrats won a huge landslide after Watergate to find a bigger lead in a House of Representatives election than 14% so forget the GOP holding the House next year, they will be doing well to avoid a Democratic Tsunami.
Berlusconi could well be Italian PM again at 80 next year so don't rule Sanders out completely but I think he will endorse Warren in the end.
Yes apologies not re elected (typing too fast). George W Bush of course had a 90% approval rating in the aftermath of 9/11 which boosted the GOP in 2002, Trump's approval rating is barely a third of that.
Plus don't underestimate Pelosi, she is more ruthless and effective than Ryan, her base is more enthusiastic about her than Ryan's base is about him which matters in midterms where only around a third vote and she also has gained the House before in 2006.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/corbyn-scotland-interview_uk_59a0635de4b0821444c2fc60?3sg
Whining about other people stopping him doing stuff is more valuable than actually doing stuff.
Like the SNP.
Mind, he might just assume that the Dems winningf the House is ‘fake news'
If they can't it will suggest that their malaise is not just about Trump - that it goes deeper.
I do rule out Sanders. Completely, utterly and totally. Berlusconi is a different case and has a different path to power via his wealth and party base. Sanders doesn't have any of the three. Moreover Berlusconi will not have his finger on a nuclear button and probably doesn't intend to do any work anyway. Sanders is conscientious and I think he knows he would be too old for what's needed, which includes two separate national elections.
"What can Lewis Hamilton do? Not enough to beat Kimi Raikkonen. His flying lap on the ultra-softs is two tenths of a second slower than the Finn.
Qualifying could well be closer than Friday suggested..."
Quite content if that's the case.
Edited extra bit: some chance of rain buggering things up. Hard to tell.
In that case, may God help us all.
Edit - incidentally I don't think NW Durham is as safe as it used to be. Pidcock may have a 9,000 majority and 52% of the vote but she also has something not seen for many years if ever - one clear challenger, whom she might well underestimate due to her visceral loathing of said challenger's party.
Last MP chosen leader: T. May
Hmmh...
If it is not Sanders the Democrats will almost certainly nominate Warren in 2020
That's just a fringe benefit
Very bizarre story
https://support.twitter.com/articles/77606
So reposts of tweets on 3rd party applications, which don't count as retweets on Twitter, are called retweets by... Twitter!
@Scott_P are they wrong?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4825206/Labour-MP-Jess-Phillips-gets-600-rape-threats-one-day.html
I do however think it highly improbable that Chapman will be launching a new political party a fortnight on Saturday or at any other time.
Someone like John Hickenlooper might be an option, though a younger candidate (Hickenlooper would be 68 in 2020) would be better.
http://www.northumberland.gov.uk/NorthumberlandCountyCouncil/media/Councillors-and-Democracy/County Council Election Results 2017/Cramlington-Eastfield-Divison.pdf
If the Democrats win the House they will take that as a mandate for impeachment and left liberal ideology which plays into Trump's hands for 2020
Nominating a Supreme Court judge is routine bread-and-butter admin for a president. If we're taking that as 'success' then we're setting the bar incredibly low. And even there, Anthony Kennedy might well be delaying retirement to prevent another Trump appointment.
On the executive orders, how many of these have been challenged and defeated in courts? I would be surprised if there wasn't a similar challenge to the transgender Order, a challenge that might well succeed as it's clearly discriminatory and it's hard to argue that such discrimination has just cause.
Just 30% of 2016 Trump voters approve of Ryan and an astonishingly low 15% of 2016 Trump voters approve of McConnell. The Democrats are up for the midterms, Trump voters clearly not
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/
https://iea.org.uk/seumas-milne-on-east-germany-historical-revisionism-at-its-worst/
There are some points that could be made - for example, the DDR and BDR were not directly comparable economically so cannot be considered an experiment with a clear outcome. One side was pillaged by the victors, one side was paid by them, which probably had a fairly significant impact on that 70% wealth disparity.
However he is quite right to call out Milne on writing articles in support of the DDR. It's rather an old interview that the author has chosen to criticise, but I commented on it and a related Guardian article negatively at the time as the fantasy of a very stupid man who wanted to trample on the faces of the poor because they dared to want some of the things he as a millionaire took for granted. I must confess though I could not match the eloquence of this commentator from the DDR itself.
The key thing about the likes of Corbyn is that it is possible he really does mean well. I don't know him personally and the fervour of those defenders who do suggest a man capable of charm and poise. But as long as he hangs out with the likes of Milne - and let's not forget Milne is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst of his friends - we have to assume his politics is basically malevolent, even if not deliberately so.
But some are worse - Pidcock, for example, who has all the malevolence and none of the charm or poise.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I think despite its unexpectedly good performance this year, Labour is still in real trouble. It has a lot of work to do to get back to sanity.
I am off out for a bike ride. Have a good weekend.
Sovereign Debt 1-55 York
One for TSE:
Come On Dave 2-30 Chester
I've also backed Hernandez to score anytime for West Ham at 3.1
Betting PostF1: is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the enormo-haddock blog, complete with pre-qualifying ramble and a tip:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/belgium-pre-qualifying-2017.html
Third practice makes it look like a three horse race for pole. That being so, I've decided to lay Hamilton at 1.54. Not an easy decision, but we'll find out soon enough whether it's wise or silly.
10.6% - Dem, 2008 (presidential, open)
8.0% - Dem, 2006 (mid-term, 2nd term Rep)
7.8% - Dem, 1990 (mid-term, 1st term Rep)
7.7% - Dem, 1988 (presidential, open) - Note: Rep won Presidency
7.1% - Rep, 1994 (mid-term, 1st term Dem)
6.8% - Rep, 2010 (mid-term, 1st term Dem)
5.7% - Rep, 2014 (mid-term, 2nd term Dem)
5.0% - Dem, 1992 (presidential, re-election)
4.8% - Rep, 2002 (mid-term, 1st term Rep)
2.6% - Rep, 2004 (presidential, re-election)
For the Democrats to win by much more than 10% ought to be a huge ask, on that record (I've not gone back beyond 30 years because House politics was very different before 1994). Perhaps Trump will give them the opportunity for a new realignment election. I wouldn't rule it out. But the more likely outcome is that they'll pile up the votes but struggle with the seats.
And for those that attack the German car industry, can I just remind them of the Trabant...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JoxFeHYcMw
I think a Trump v Warren race would see Trump do better in the likes of California, where he even lost Orange County to Hillary and thus the popular vote but the Electoral College could be closer if Warren can win back 1 or 2 Midwestern swing states
Anderson 3 for 10.
Bernie isnt crazy like trump.
this is interesting on Trumps declining support from his reluctant voters
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-reluctant-voters-are-getting-more-reluctant/
If that margin was repeated on election day it would be ironic if the GOP gerrymandering only led them to an even more crushing landslide defeat losing districts they have held for decades rather than saving their bacon as they had hoped
"reposts of tweets on 3rd party applications" is not what it says.
"Retweets may appear differently in third-party applications" is what it says
So retweets on 3rd party applications, which don't count as retweets on Twitter, are called retweets by... Twitter!
None of my posts are retweets.
But thanks for playing...
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2018-national-house-race
Changing the political balance of America's highest courts, perhaps for a generation, won't make him a successful president - but it will make him a consequential one (and it is also a matter of great importance to his republican supporters).
I disagree that Hickenlooper is too centrist. Firstly, Sanders lost. Yes, he got close but he still lost: the centre can win nominations. Secondly, Hillary was a rotten campaigner and she still won. Yes, she won with a load of establishment endorsements and money (not that Sanders was underfunded), but she overcame that. A better campaigner with less baggage should be able to do likewise.
(I'll get my coat...)
Cpuld mean the Trumpers wont vote for the mid terms
But the original question was about his effectiveness and my point is that getting a court nominee endorsed is no great mark of effectiveness.
So Sanders and Warren combined lead the field comfortably, though Hillary almost certainly won't run again
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2017/sanders_still_democrats_choice_for_2020_but_it_s_close
The scale of cross-voting in 1988 was huge (as it was in 1984 too - Reagan won by over 18% but the Dems kept the House, winning by 5.1%.
The mystery is how little effort Democrats in Congress have put in to opposing them.
Why can't retired brexiteers pick fruit for their pensions?
Non-medical retirement won't be a thing for the kids generation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/union-flags-now-feature-on-british-driving-licences
Written as a former "child slave"* from the berry camps of the Vale of Strathmore.
*unaccountably paid and allowed to return home each evening.
“Our flag is recognised and respected around the world and is something which British people take pride in. I am delighted to see it featured on driving licences.
“We are bringing the country together. Adding our national flag to British driving licences is a true celebration of one nation Britain.” '
Obviously not everyone.
The Butcher's Apron is a pejorative term for the flag, common among Irish republicans,
Reduce the state pensions to allow for their increased earnings capacity, use the money saved (considerably more than £350 million a week) to fund the NHS and everyone's a winner.
Just back from my ride across the Chase to Rugeley. Important news - the pylons are all up for the electrification of the Chase Railway, although the gantries haven't gone on yet.
And some of those hills on the Chase are steeper than a Gordon Brown budget!
F1: ****ing hell. Raikkonen had a serious vibration through qualifying and didn't do his final lap (due to error) on which everyone else markedly improved. He should've been 2nd (outside shot of pole).
*sighs*
And salami back the other way?