Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next Presi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next President
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the American presidential election cycle seems to move. Donald Trump has only been in the White House since January last year and now all the talk is of the 2020 contest with a focus on who would be his Democratic opponent should he decide to run again.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nah, the Americans will never go for it.
Oprah, as far as I can tell, does seem to be one of the few women in any field who's got a public persona of being defiant and strong-minded, yet also at the same time being warm and "relateable" (Hillary scored well on the "tough" scale, but failed badly on the "warm" scale - one of the big reasons for her underperformance with white women in particular, who should've been easy pickings in a contest against Trump). On paper, it looks like an Oprah candidacy could work.
But of course, there's the small matter of whether she's actually any good at politics/campaigning....
But it's a bit sad isn't it that to succeed in politics you have to be more than good on TV, you have to come from it.
Wonder what that means for UK politics 10-15 years hence.
Kilroy to return?
It isn't just that Oprah is a liberal luvvie, following on from Obama she will re-inforce an impression that the Dems have become primarily a black party. Whilst energising black turnout she will push swathes of poor whites further into Trump's hands.
Let us not forget it was Trump's anti immigration, anti globalisation populism that won him the Republican nomination rather than just his celebrity.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail
But does Oprah really want to spend her days getting North Korea to disarm its nukes?
[*That's notwithstanding the fact they actually border Belarus (basically a Russian satellite) and Ukraine (divided) which doesn't necessarily mean very much]
"You get a nuke, you get a nuke, EVERYBODY gets a nuke!"
A private company has made a decision.
People are free to boycott Virgin products in response.
Well done Virgin Trains!
A free press is important. Being exposed to views other than your own is important. Don't like the Daily Mail? Do as I do and damn well don't buy it.
I don't want a piss-poor train operating company that can barely get its passengers from A to B without ripping them off to make moral judgements on what I should or should not read.
Values? Remind me how long Branson has been a tax exile for now...
You approve of that kind of stuff my friend?
I'd say exactly the same if they stopped stocking the Guardian or even The New European, due to pressure from Brexiters.
Disclaimer: I fought an identical motion to ban the Daily Mail from the sale of the Student's Union at Bristol University 15 years ago. I'm pleased to say I defeated it.
If they stop stocking anything, as a business, it should be down to customer demand only. They're the ones who decide what they read as grown adults, fully able to think for themselves, and them alone. It should not be influenced by pressure from well-organised employees who are members of Stop Funding Hate. We live in a democracy not a vigilante state.
Even if there are 500 passengers a day who read it, but 2,000 who kick up a stink about it, they should still stock it for the 500 and politely tell the other 2,000 to be more tolerant or to engage their fellow passengers in polite debate.
There is a mob at the moment that's trying to put the Daily Mail, Express and the Sun out of business (or to fundamentally change their editorial lines) in order to help win a national political battle. The premise is that those titles are contributing to false consciousness of the people, another tired socialist shibboleth, which is their excuse for not engaging with the argument in free debate. So they try and stack the deck instead.
They say it's about stopping division. Actually, it reinforces division because it's (instantly) politicised Virgin Trains, which will come back to haunt them.
They should have followed the example of John Lewis who politely told them to mind their own business.
I won't be putting any money on Prime Minister Bradley Walsh. Yet.
Since it doesn't, and fully complies with the law, it's an attempt to close down public argument of a point-of-view it doesn't agree with.
I can't stand the Socialist Worker. I still wouldn't dream of trying to ban anyone from stocking or selling it. I see free debate (of all points of view) as a blessing, not a curse.
Though Mayor of London offers a chance to get elected to the post straight away as Bloomberg became Mayor of NYC
The Daily Mail is nothing more than a medium to spread hate. It should be banned at source...
It's a despicable racist publication - period.
They've actually now effectively stigmatised reading the Daily Mail on Virgin Trains.
True liberalism allows Virgin Trains to make whatever decision they see fit. Customer demand can work in more than one way.
I find the attempts by "Stop funding hate" to be utterly odious and of far more concern to a functioning and healthy democracy than I do the views of the Mail, that should be debated and challenged as opposed to silenced.
In politics we have points of view that can and should be expressed and challenged. As I say, if you don't like the Mail, don't buy it. I don't.
Casino Royale puts it way better than me: The fact that we are losing our ability to tolerate other points of view is extremely alarming. I don't want a train operating company to comment on what it thinks its passengers should or shouldn't read any more than I want my brand of breakfast cereal to tell me who it thinks I should vote for.
A sign-off used by people who aren't confident they can deal with the argument that might follow.
I actually reckon the real reason for stopping selling the daily mail is virgin don’t sell many papers at all, especially with iPads etc. But opportunity for some good old virtue signalling / PR couldn’t be passed up.
But the idea that (as they claim) they allow a range of views... but limit that to what 'is compatible with our brand' is a strange one indeed.
On size alone, a tablet, book, or Evening Standard at most is all I'd go for.
I am all for free speech but I am against hate speech. Big difference there...
Again, well done Virgin Trains!
What could be more free market?
As ever, others are free to organise, campaign and boycott as they wish.
Never seen it on the East Coast.
The latter are far more damaging and wide-reaching. And in this case it wasn't customers - it was Virgin Trains and their employees.
We know that, because they've told us.
The sentence of tyrants.
I have read on here that it is one of the most visited websites on the web. That is truly depressing. But I don't see how anyone can take the political views of such a publication seriously let alone get wound up about them.
So it risks ending up being an unhealthy reinforcement of the divisions caused in our country by Brexit.
Lovely.
I don't think we would benefit from being a society where Conservatives organised boycotts of any company that was linked to the left, and vice versa.
It is the only liberal way!
In the same way, out of sheer boredom, I sometimes pick up the Evening Standard on the train home.
If the real reason is that only older people buy the Daily Mail in hard-copy these days, and everyone else is just browsing its website on their iPads discreetly instead, then I'd just keep it to that basic business decision.
Virgin Trains might have thought they'd get some good PR out of this, probably because those that make such decisions all talk to people who agree with them, who'd have applauded it, but what they've done here is chosen a side that risks - quite aside from anything else - becoming more damaging for their business and brand in the long-run.
Just grow up. You devalue the term "racist" by such casual useage.
@DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.
What's the problem?
"The Mail has recently been critical of Sir Richard after the government agreed to bail out the Virgin/Stagecoach East Coast franchise"
With Christmas dinner, Grandpa Fox objected to my choice of Fleurie as the wine, as too French. I pointed that his preferred Argentine Malbec was no great respecter of British sovereignty!
I think they will end up carrying freesheets and perhaps bulk copies in restaurant cars.
The stuff about the "Fascist Daily Mail must be banned in 2018 because something something 193x" is just funny. Bankrupt minds howling abuse. Life is more complicated. Here is the Daily Mirror from 1934 (if the embed works):
There is a backstory to that as well.
But if you want real appeasement, look in the Peace Pledge Union magazine for that period.
You just need the party with a majority in the Commons to select you as their leader, as was Lord Home as PM but not MP.
Easier to get 300odd MPs to vote for you than the populace as a whole.
In the same way many Chambers have to explain to newly qualified staff why it's so important to offer defence services to clients that look 100% guilty.
As far as the PPU, there is a world of difference between appeasment (Then government policy, and seen as settling legitimate greivences from the treaty of Versailles) and active cheerleading for fascists in this country.
Should it be "from a black, Asian OR minority ethnic background" or will they be interviewing at least one black, one asian and one of minority ethnic background?
What about one woman, one disabled, one gay and one transgender?
I'm not a party to the internal workings of East Coast, but I doubt their 10% gain Virgin (yet alone Branson) that much say ...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/09/reshuffle-government-tory-cabinet-theresa-may-not-quite-says-new-tory-chair-when-asked-about-party-being-in-a-mess-politics-live
15:06
You have so much hatred in your heart my lefty friend.
Indeed, for both parties, the way for a candidate to emerge is via the Primary process. It has evolved as a way of testing out potential candidates in the field. Generally it produces two reasonable candidates, with 2016 the obvious exception.
But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.
The only other site that comes close is the Grauniad