politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov have run their very accurate constituency predictor on

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov have run their very accurate constituency predictor on the House elections in November

YouGov has run its MRP model on the US Congress. Midpoint gives the Democrats an overall majority of 3…https://t.co/nVYXoomaj1

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance

First! Like Leave, Mrs May & NO.....

TheJezziah

Second, like the Conservative led coalition of parties next time...

(hopefully!)

On topic: All very close but a more positive return than talk on here has indicated, although that could easily tighten even more as time goes on and tiny swings would make a big difference. The mid-terms seem to be hard work in the USA these days.

Edit: Hard work for the party in charge that is.

HYUFD

I fail to see why on earth the Democratic Party gaining 26 seats leading to Speaker Pelosi should be considered 'alarming' for those betting on a Democratic Congress? It may not match the midterm avalanches of 2010, 1994 and 1974 but would still be the biggest Democratic gain of House seats since 2006 when the Democrats gained 31 seats to win control of Congress and indeed would be even bigger than the 21 gains the Democrats made in 2008 when Obama was elected.

Indeed with the Democrats also currently leading in Senate race polls in GOP held Tennessee and Nevada and Arizona while trailing only in Indiana and Montana of seats they currently hold it is even possible the Democrats could take the Senate too especially given Trump's still poor approval rating of 43%. No party has gained both the House and Senate in the President's first midterms since the GOP in 1994 and the first midterms of Bill Clinton

CarlottaVance

Didn't the YouGov model that got the UKGE result very close not come out nigh on polling day? I wonder what it would have shown 5 months out - we'll never know, because 5 months out we didn't know there would be a GE......but there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now & November.....assuming the US works out a way of paying Kim's bill at the Fullerton, and no one finds out......then of course there's Trump's trade war.....

CarlottaVance

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

Britain is taking what a minister has described as an “active role” in shaping new EU value added tax regulations for the 2020s, suggesting the Treasury is planning for the UK to remain inside the bloc’s VAT area after the Brexit transition period.

In a letter seen by the Financial Times from Mel Stride, financial secretary to the Treasury, to Charlie Elphicke, MP for Dover, the minister also says: “The government aims to keep VAT processes after EU exit as close as possible to what they are now.”

If Britain seeks to remain inside the EU VAT area, it will continue to be bound by rules set in Brussels that are ultimately policed by the European Court of Justice, breaking one of Theresa May’s negotiating red lines.
https://www.ft.com/content/1de61f96-6736-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec

Sandpit

Interestingly Betfair seems to agree pretty much with the polling, it’s close to a dead heat with the Democrats very slight favourites.
Dem Maj 1.84 1.85
GOP Maj 2.1 2.2
No Maj 160 320
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974989

TheJezziah

CarlottaVance said:

Didn't the YouGov model that got the UKGE result very close not come out nigh on polling day? I wonder what it would have shown 5 months out - we'll never know, because 5 months out we didn't know there would be a GE......but there's a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now & November.....assuming the US works out a way of paying Kim's bill at the Fullerton, and no one finds out......then of course there's Trump's trade war.....

I think part of the reason Trump won originally is because (to some) Hilary was some kind of cartoon bad guy representing the worst elements of the Democrats to potential Republican voters, added to the always Republican voters and the specific Trump motivated ones.

All 3 groups aren't as motivated now, the Trumps, as long as they are convinced to come out for his people are okay, as well as presumably the always republicans (some very small number not voting for current Republicans because of Trump maybe) it is the potential Republicans that might need more of a boost. Some negative Democrat news pieces and positive Republican ones can bring these people back home just need a friendly news cycle to remind people why even though they dislike many things about x they have some stuff going for them whereas y are just beyond reasonable.

The more difficult aspect is the much more motivated democrat base, it is probably much harder to negatively paint all the candidates in the same way they had done with Clinton. She had been something of a hate figure for some of the American right for years so there was serious groundwork there. Even a positive news cycle with the right messages to the right people will be coming up against a large motivated group of democrat voters who can just vote against the Republicans and for their vision of the Democrats.

Nigelb

The Trump lawyers’ arguments would have made George III blush.

Though, to be fair, it represents the continuation of a trend started under Bush over the torture arguments (remember the Bybee memo ?)

DavidL

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

The Trump lawyers’ arguments would have made George III blush.

Though, to be fair, it represents the continuation of a trend started under Bush over the torture arguments (remember the Bybee memo ?)

Why George III particularly?

Charles

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

Britain is taking what a minister has described as an “active role” in shaping new EU value added tax regulations for the 2020s, suggesting the Treasury is planning for the UK to remain inside the bloc’s VAT area after the Brexit transition period.

In a letter seen by the Financial Times from Mel Stride, financial secretary to the Treasury, to Charlie Elphicke, MP for Dover, the minister also says: “The government aims to keep VAT processes after EU exit as close as possible to what they are now.”

If Britain seeks to remain inside the EU VAT area, it will continue to be bound by rules set in Brussels that are ultimately policed by the European Court of Justice, breaking one of Theresa May’s negotiating red lines.
https://www.ft.com/content/1de61f96-6736-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec

That’s a bit of a stretch of logic

If they hadn’t taken an active role they wouldnt be doing their job

CarlottaVance

Nate Silver:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018

logical_song

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

I think you're right about the Senate.
From 538:
"The 2018 Senate map is bad, even “brutal,” for Democrats. Of the 35 seats on the ballot this cycle, 26 are held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, and just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats must flip two of those nine — without losing any seats of their own — in order to take a Senate majority. "

"The Senate isn’t just biased toward Republicans; it’s really biased toward Republicans. Going by partisan lean, there are 31 states more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole compared with just 19 states more Democratic-leaning. Because each state has two senators, that means 62 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof supermajority) are Republican-leaning and 38 are Democratic-leaning."

rcs1000

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

Sandpit

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

I think you're right about the Senate.
From 538:
"The 2018 Senate map is bad, even “brutal,” for Democrats. Of the 35 seats on the ballot this cycle, 26 are held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, and just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats must flip two of those nine — without losing any seats of their own — in order to take a Senate majority. "

"The Senate isn’t just biased toward Republicans; it’s really biased toward Republicans. Going by partisan lean, there are 31 states more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole compared with just 19 states more Democratic-leaning. Because each state has two senators, that means 62 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof supermajority) are Republican-leaning and 38 are Democratic-leaning."

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters. A lot of the Dem Senate seats up for grabs are in in areas that voted heavily for Trump in 2016, having been last contested in 2012 on the same day Obama was re-elected. Betfair’s 1.4 on a Republican Majority Senate is probably still value.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1003334446697902082?s=21

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

I think you're right about the Senate.
From 538:
"The 2018 Senate map is bad, even “brutal,” for Democrats. Of the 35 seats on the ballot this cycle, 26 are held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, and just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats must flip two of those nine — without losing any seats of their own — in order to take a Senate majority. "

"The Senate isn’t just biased toward Republicans; it’s really biased toward Republicans. Going by partisan lean, there are 31 states more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole compared with just 19 states more Democratic-leaning. Because each state has two senators, that means 62 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof supermajority) are Republican-leaning and 38 are Democratic-leaning."

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters. A lot of the Dem Senate seats up for grabs are in in areas that voted heavily for Trump in 2016, having been last contested in 2012 on the same day Obama was re-elected. Betfair’s 1.4 on a Republican Majority Senate is probably still value.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

Huge, fill your boots value.

Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states won by Trump where Democrats are defending this year.

Of these, perhaps only Pennsylvania looks genuinely safe for the Dems.

Now, the Dems should flip Nevada, where demographics are in their favour, and there are outside chances in Arizona, Tennessee and - possibly - Texas. But given the Republicans are in control of the Senate right now, 1.4 on them to hold it looks excellent value,

rcs1000

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters.

As an aside, I can't agree with your comment.

I think there are at least 50 naturally Republican voters.

OldKingCole

Totally O/t but watching the Very English Scandal last night, and the Tom Mangold production afterwards, I was struck by the thought that Thorpe was one of the few people who came across as a better human being as a politician than as a man!

Recidivist

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

CarlottaVance said:

Britain is taking what a minister has described as an “active role” in shaping new EU value added tax regulations for the 2020s, suggesting the Treasury is planning for the UK to remain inside the bloc’s VAT area after the Brexit transition period.

In a letter seen by the Financial Times from Mel Stride, financial secretary to the Treasury, to Charlie Elphicke, MP for Dover, the minister also says: “The government aims to keep VAT processes after EU exit as close as possible to what they are now.”

If Britain seeks to remain inside the EU VAT area, it will continue to be bound by rules set in Brussels that are ultimately policed by the European Court of Justice, breaking one of Theresa May’s negotiating red lines.
https://www.ft.com/content/1de61f96-6736-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec

All good stuff. We don't want rejoining to be the dog's breakfast that leaving is shaping up to be.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Hmm. Could be interesting.

Easton's segment on polling Englishness was a bit concise. He also started south, then went more south, then more south, but I think there are more bits and pieces coming so hopefully he'll manage to discover the north before then. Lower percentages describing themselves as English the more southerly one goes is unsurprising.

I was amused by the student who specifically cited Richard the Lionheart (as a bad example). It'd be good to know if that was off his own bat or her was led that way. Using a 12th century man to try and exemplify a 21st century identity is not necessarily wise, and if he were after a positive example he could've easily cited Alfred the Great or Edward III.

Edited extra bit: only skimmed this, have other stuff to do, but the map is nice. Essentially, the further away from London you are, the more English you're likely to be/feel.

rkrkrk

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

I think you're right about the Senate.
From 538:
"The 2018 Senate map is bad, even “brutal,” for Democrats. Of the 35 seats on the ballot this cycle, 26 are held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, and just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats must flip two of those nine — without losing any seats of their own — in order to take a Senate majority. "

"The Senate isn’t just biased toward Republicans; it’s really biased toward Republicans. Going by partisan lean, there are 31 states more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole compared with just 19 states more Democratic-leaning. Because each state has two senators, that means 62 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof supermajority) are Republican-leaning and 38 are Democratic-leaning."

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters. A lot of the Dem Senate seats up for grabs are in in areas that voted heavily for Trump in 2016, having been last contested in 2012 on the same day Obama was re-elected. Betfair’s 1.4 on a Republican Majority Senate is probably still value.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

Huge, fill your boots value.

Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states won by Trump where Democrats are defending this year.

Of these, perhaps only Pennsylvania looks genuinely safe for the Dems.

Now, the Dems should flip Nevada, where demographics are in their favour, and there are outside chances in Arizona, Tennessee and - possibly - Texas. But given the Republicans are in control of the Senate right now, 1.4 on them to hold it looks excellent value,

I like the bet to lay Democratic control at 9. Independents don't count to their required total - which essentially means the Dems would need to win all tossups and probably Texas also.

Charles

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

Pulpstar

OldKingCole said:

Totally O/t but watching the Very English Scandal last night, and the Tom Mangold production afterwards, I was struck by the thought that Thorpe was one of the few people who came across as a better human being as a politician than as a man!

Guilty as sin

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

I AGREE 100%

My posts are about DOWN TICKET Democrats. I.e., will they make progress in state legislatures and senates?

OldKingCole

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

rcs1000

No one on Twitter understands Target-2.

I am, therefore, retiring to bed.

Play nicely children.

Elliot

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

TheScreamingEagles

Parish notice.

I’m going to be rather busy today so if anything major happens I’m not ignoring it.

The afternoon thread has been written well in advance and is scheduled to be auto published.

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

I AGREE 100%

My posts are about DOWN TICKET Democrats. I.e., will they make progress in state legislatures and senates?

They made surprisingly little progress down ticket in 2012, despite winning the Presidency and gaining in the Senate. They must surely gain seats, but it doesn't look like a wave. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado (State Senate) and Maine look like their best bets.

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

No one on Twitter understands Target-2.

I am, therefore, retiring to bed.

Play nicely children.

You could direct them towards PB. We have had several discussions about it.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

The Trump lawyers’ arguments would have made George III blush.

Though, to be fair, it represents the continuation of a trend started under Bush over the torture arguments (remember the Bybee memo ?)

Why George III particularly?

Wasn't his little disagreement with the colonies over the matter of excessive and unchecked executive power, and the Constitution written explicitly to prevent such in the future ?

MarqueeMark

rcs1000 said:

The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

Having worked with Okies, I somehow doubt that twice the Democrat candidates will translate into twice the representatives.....

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

I think you're right about the Senate.
From 538:
"The 2018 Senate map is bad, even “brutal,” for Democrats. Of the 35 seats on the ballot this cycle, 26 are held by senators who caucus with the Democrats, and just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats must flip two of those nine — without losing any seats of their own — in order to take a Senate majority. "

"The Senate isn’t just biased toward Republicans; it’s really biased toward Republicans. Going by partisan lean, there are 31 states more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole compared with just 19 states more Democratic-leaning. Because each state has two senators, that means 62 Senate seats (a filibuster-proof supermajority) are Republican-leaning and 38 are Democratic-leaning."

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters. A lot of the Dem Senate seats up for grabs are in in areas that voted heavily for Trump in 2016, having been last contested in 2012 on the same day Obama was re-elected. Betfair’s 1.4 on a Republican Majority Senate is probably still value.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

Huge, fill your boots value.

Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states won by Trump where Democrats are defending this year.

Of these, perhaps only Pennsylvania looks genuinely safe for the Dems.

Now, the Dems should flip Nevada, where demographics are in their favour, and there are outside chances in Arizona, Tennessee and - possibly - Texas. But given the Republicans are in control of the Senate right now, 1.4 on them to hold it looks excellent value,

Are odds of 1.4 ever 'huge, fill your boots value' unless the outcome is a certainty ?
Although a Democrat Senate is unlikely this time around, US politics is right now sufficiently febrile to confound such confident predictions.

Charles

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

Agree on all three counts

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

No one on Twitter understands Target-2.

I am, therefore, retiring to bed.

Play nicely children.

Isn't your duty rather to stay up and educate them ?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1003534455250804736

Casino_Royale

Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?

In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?

Charles

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

No one on Twitter understands Target-2.

I am, therefore, retiring to bed.

Play nicely children.

You could direct them towards PB. We have had several discussions about it.

You crazy? We have a nice time on here

Charles

.

Morris_Dancer

F1: gossip, apparently Coulthard reckons Hamilton will quite F1 in 2020.

If accurate, may influence Mercedes' decision on their other driver.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

Alanbrooke

Elliot said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

hmmm

the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?

In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?

In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.

1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities,
2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.

NickPalmer

Casino_Royale said:

Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?

In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?

Broadly, at the moment the Democrats would do better (+20 or so, IIRC). That reflects greater gOP control of states rather than greater virtue in not gerrymandering. I believe California almost uniquely has fair independent boundary-setting - decided by a referendum, I think?

I agree with Elliot that the way the states are represented is absurd - one of those historical anomalies like the Lords. The practical effect is to benefit rural areas, which generally means the Republicans.

Fenman

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Hmm. Could be interesting.

Easton's segment on polling Englishness was a bit concise. He also started south, then went more south, then more south, but I think there are more bits and pieces coming so hopefully he'll manage to discover the north before then. Lower percentages describing themselves as English the more southerly one goes is unsurprising.

I was amused by the student who specifically cited Richard the Lionheart (as a bad example). It'd be good to know if that was off his own bat or her was led that way. Using a 12th century man to try and exemplify a 21st century identity is not necessarily wise, and if he were after a positive example he could've easily cited Alfred the Great or Edward III.

Edited extra bit: only skimmed this, have other stuff to do, but the map is nice. Essentially, the further away from London you are, the more English you're likely to be/feel.

So the further away from London the more likely you are to be living in the past.

tlg86

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?

In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?

In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.

1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities,
2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.

That second point is quite funny really.

tlg86

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: gossip, apparently Coulthard reckons Hamilton will quite F1 in 2020.

If accurate, may influence Mercedes' decision on their other driver.

There's a rumour that McLaren might start running an IRL team. I wonder if Lewis would be up for that?

Mortimer

Alanbrooke said:

Elliot said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

hmmm

the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them

Mr Brooke - latest news is that the DUP are on board and the boundary changes look set to pass the HoC.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1003334446697902082?s=21

Keep Kim, oust Angela. Strange times.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Though the Democrats held the Senate from 2010 to 2014 even after having lost the House

Elliot

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Though the Democrats held the Senate from 2010 to 2014 even after having lost the House

That was mainly due to the Republicans nominating witches and those with strange views on rape.

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

Currently the Democratic candidate leads the latest poll in West Virginia, Missouri and North Dakota, only trailing in Indiana and Montana.

In West Virginia it helps that Senator Manchin, the Democratic candidate, is more socially conservative than many Republicans

kle4

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fenman, you're aware that England exists? Do you think Yorkshiremen live doubly in the past?

You, sir, are a silly sausage.

Mr. 86, Coutlhard's view was that Hamilton could embark upon a musical career.

Mr. kle4, indeed. Honorius was emperor for quite some time. And he was bloody awful. Agree on Hunt, mind.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

kle4

Alanbrooke said:

Elliot said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down round.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

hmmm

the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them

The UK isn't, Elliott was, and even if the UK did and has its own issues, is it worse? If not, it could still point out the flaws even as it isn't perfect.

Elliot

Alanbrooke said:

Elliot said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

Democrat one.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

hmmm

the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them

The unreformed boundaries in the UK are still far superior to the Senate or the House.

I don't think people truly appreciate how messed up the US has become. Much of the media is active propaganda, especially on the conservative side, lobbyist money controls the whole system, regulators are run by the industries they 'regulate', the Senate is grossly unrepresentative, and the House and state legislatures are actively rigged. Trump is a symptom of the malfunction more than he is a cure.

It is a terrible thing for the future of democracy worldwide that the most visible example of it is such a perverted version.

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

He might he brought down - my initial reaction was his excuses were lame to say the least - but that's a side issue to having done well to last so long and not be universally hated (I'm sure plenty do hate him, but I don't see that he is the focus of a lot).

Whether he lasts much longer or can go further is a different matter. At present it seems like Javid is stealing the show as potential successor.

Sandpit

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, there are more naturally Republican States then naturally Republican voters.

As an aside, I can't agree with your comment.

I think there are at least 50 naturally Republican voters.

There are more than 50 naturally Republican Senators

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

I AGREE 100%

My posts are about DOWN TICKET Democrats. I.e., will they make progress in state legislatures and senates?

They made surprisingly little progress down ticket in 2012, despite winning the Presidency and gaining in the Senate. They must surely gain seats, but it doesn't look like a wave. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado (State Senate) and Maine look like their best bets.

In 2012 though the GOP held the House despite Obama beating Romney.

In 2006, the last time the Democrats gained the House, they won 28 out of 36 governorships and 23 state legislatures to the Republicans 17 with 9 NOC so if the Democrats gain the House again they will be hoping for a similar result down ballot at state level as well as Federal level

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

TOPPING

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Fenman, you're aware that England exists? Do you think Yorkshiremen live doubly in the past?

You, sir, are a silly sausage.

Mr. 86, Coutlhard's view was that Hamilton could embark upon a musical career.

M.

I'm surprised - Hamilton seems to have that obsession to be regarded as the best that many champions do, I'd assume he'd keep going as long as possible.

As for a new career, perhaps he is very good, but it seems sometimes a lot of famous people on one area wish they were famous in another, usually music, and usually don't do so well. The transition to acting from another field seems to work better

JonnyJimmy

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

Does he?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44300559
Jeremy Hunt will face no further action over property complaint

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

He might he brought down - my initial reaction was his excuses were lame to say the least - but that's a side issue to having done well to last so long and not be universally hated (I'm sure plenty do hate him, but I don't see that he is the focus of a lot).

Whether he lasts much longer or can go further is a different matter. At present it seems like Javid is stealing the show as potential successor.

Javid and Davidson even Mourdaunt were tipped by Adam Boulton in the ST yesterday as having now overtaken Hunt as the main alternatives to Boris and Mogg to become next Tory leader

rkrkrk

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

SouthamObserver

In a federal system, the two senators per state rule makes absolute sense. It also makes sense for states to draw up their on constituency boundaries. The abuse of that is, of course, shocking. It’s also worth remembering that most laws affecting Americans on a day to day level are made at the state level. Minnesota and Texas are basically two different countries - and not only in terms of the weather.

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether andidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast margins by Trump, in 2016, and his rating is only down 3% since then. All the sitting Senators could hugely outperform the generic Democratic vote in those States, and still lose.

I AGREE 100%

My posts are about DOWN TICKET Democrats. I.e., will they make progress in state legislatures and senates?

They made surprisingly little progress down ticket in 2012, despite winning the Presidency and gaining in the Senate. They must surely gain seats, but it doesn't look like a wave. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado (State Senate) and Maine look like their best bets.

In 2012 though the GOP held the House despite Obama beating Romney.

In 2006, the last time the Democrats gained the House, they won 28 out of 36 governorships and 23 state legislatures to the Republicans 17 with 9 NOC so if the Democrats gain the House again they will be hoping for a similar result down ballot at state level as well as Federal level

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Several Southern legislatures were still Democratic then, which won't be the case now.

rottenborough

Morning all,

Boris to be out of Cabinet over Heathrow?

HYUFD

JonnyJimmy said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

Does he?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44300559
Jeremy Hunt will face no further action over property complaint

I see that still ruled he breached the MPs code of conduct, even if it was at the less serious end so no further action will be taken difficult to launch a leadership campaign on the back of that

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

The much more interesting question to me is whether andidates as they did last time around.

The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.

That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

My point is that the Dems have been hammered down ticket in many states across the US, and this has led to a gerrymandered House of Representatives. Will any of these states see Dems make progress at a state level?

West Virginia, Indiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota were all won by vast mar.

I AGREE 100%

My posts are about DOWN TICKET Democrats. I.e., will they make progress in state legislatures and senates?

They made surprisingly little progress down ticket in 2012, despite winning the Presidency and gaining in the Senate. They must surely gain seats, but it doesn't look like a wave. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado (State Senate) and Maine look like their best bets.

In 2012 though the GOP held the House despite Obama beating Romney.

In 2006, the last time the Democrats gained the House, they won 28 out of 36 governorships and 23 state legislatures to the Republicans 17 with 9 NOC so if the Democrats gain the House again they will be hoping for a similar result down ballot at state level as well as Federal level

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Several Southern legislatures were still Democratic then, which won't be the case now.

Given Alabama has just elected a Democratic Senator and a Democrat leads the Senate race in Tennessee and even Hillary won Virginia I would not be certain no state legislatures in the South could go Democratic

kle4

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

Dr Foxy has said he's not the worst health secretary we've ever had, but I do not know if there are stats on how much he is hated. If a poll says he is the most hates then frankly I will be very surprised - if he was so widely hated I feel like he'd be personally much more of a focus of the opposition. Yes no doubt they mention him, but it doesn't feel like much. I don't even know who his shadow counterpart is.

I don't get that impression, and the department is one where bad news always comes and yet the biggest threat to his position is not anything he's done on that, but a personal matter. If he was hated more he'd be more well known I think, when he's actually pretty low key is my impression.

JonnyJimmy

HYUFD said:

JonnyJimmy said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

He still has to survive the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into his property dealings though

Does he?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44300559
Jeremy Hunt will face no further action over property complaint

I see that still ruled he breached the MPs code of conduct, even if it was at the less serious end so no further action will be taken difficult to launch a leadership campaign on the back of that

So you think he hasn't survived it? He died pretty quietly!

Foxy

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, I don't focus much on off-track stuff, but Hamilton has shown an interest in music for a long time (I'm pretty sure he plays the piano) and suggestions he might go into the industry after F1 have been around for years.

Also, he was, along with Alonso, noisily condemning the Monaco procession. And he's been around since 2007, which is a fair whack.

He could stay for years, but if he chose to go sooner it'd not be a huge shock. Of course, with F1 losing audience numbers due to short-sighted pay TV deals, which are also driving down sponsor interest and making life even harder for the teams, losing the sport's megastar won't help.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1003547018969706496

SouthamObserver

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

The Tories need to find someone who can break the current Labour voting alliance - that fragile mix of Remainers, anti-Tories and Corbyn-worshippers. Like Johnson, Gove and Rees Mogg, Hunt would keep it together, precisely because he’s so identified with the NHS. The Tories can rely on Corbyn to deliver them the most seats in a hung Parliament, but to get a decent working majority they will need to find a next generation leader who is not currently in the Cabinet.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

The Tories need to find someone who can break the current Labour voting alliance - that fragile mix of Remainers, anti-Tories and Corbyn-worshippers. Like Johnson, Gove and Rees Mogg, Hunt would keep it together, precisely because he’s so identified with the NHS. The Tories can rely on Corbyn to deliver them the most seats in a hung Parliament, but to get a decent working majority they will need to find a next generation leader who is not currently in the Cabinet.

They need to take a gamble. Not easy for parties to do.

rottenborough

SouthamObserver said:

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

The Tories need to find someone who can break the current Labour voting alliance - that fragile mix of Remainers, anti-Tories and Corbyn-worshippers. Like Johnson, Gove and Rees Mogg, Hunt would keep it together, precisely because he’s so identified with the NHS. The Tories can rely on Corbyn to deliver them the most seats in a hung Parliament, but to get a decent working majority they will need to find a next generation leader who is not currently in the Cabinet.

They will also have to have demonstrable progress on housing and moving on from austerity.

No sign whatsoever of the former.

The latter, well maybe a bit with next month's 70th NHS spending announcement.

Morris_Dancer

The NHS funding situation might be a little better if Brown hadn't gone PFI mad. It's all very well necking your own body weight in beer, but you might just end up with a hangover.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

There is that - but as we saw with May's long tenure at the Home Office, it might just indicate a great ability to paper over the cracks.

There is, however, talk of a new long term funding settlement for the NHS... let's see how that pans out.

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean ea it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

There is that - but as we saw with May's long tenure at the Home Office, it might just indicate a great ability to paper over the cracks.

There is, however, talk of a new long term funding settlement for the NHS... let's see how that pans out.

I'm calling it now...it won't be seen as enough. It never is.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, it wouldn't be enough under normal circumstances. With Corbyn's deranged brand of socialism, he'll be promising the moon on a stick.

rkrkrk

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

Dr Foxy has said he's not the worst health secretary we've ever had, but I do not know if there are stats on how much he is hated. If a poll says he is the most hates then frankly I will be very surprised - if he was so widely hated I feel like he'd be personally much more of a focus of the opposition. Yes no doubt they mention him, but it doesn't feel like much. I don't even know who his shadow counterpart is.

I don't get that impression, and the department is one where bad news always comes and yet the biggest threat to his position is not anything he's done on that, but a personal matter. If he was hated more he'd be more well known I think, when he's actually pretty low key is my impression.

I don't think he's the worst ever - but I think he might be the most hated. IMO he has been given an absolute hospital pass by Tory chancellors and his predecessor's dog's dinner of a health reform. I agree it's a very difficult thing to measure.

I think the case for him being the most hated rests on:
first ever all-out doctors strike, various reports saying morale is low/at a record low
(this seems to be less clear-cut)
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-doctors-morale-gmc-report-specialising-state-of-medicine-general-medical-council-working-a7382606.html

This suggests he polled worse than Lansley: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-is-the-most-disliked-frontline-british-politician-of-any-party-a-new-poll-shows-a6874846.html

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: gossip, apparently Coulthard reckons Hamilton will quite F1 in 2020.

If accurate, may influence Mercedes' decision on their other driver.

Possibly, but I think he sees a shot at Schumacher’s 7 titles record.

If Mercedes can replace Bottas with Ricciardo they should though, he’s five years younger than Lewis and can lead the team for the next decade.

archer101au

rcs1000 said:

No one on Twitter understands Target-2.

I am, therefore, retiring to bed.

Play nicely children.

A bit like quantum physics, if you aren't terrified by Target 2, that is because you don't understand it.

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

SouthamObserver said:

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

The Tories need to find someone who can break the current Labour voting alliance - that fragile mix of Remainers, anti-Tories and Corbyn-worshippers. Like Johnson, Gove and Rees Mogg, Hunt would keep it together, precisely because he’s so identified with the NHS. The Tories can rely on Corbyn to deliver them the most seats in a hung Parliament, but to get a decent working majority they will need to find a next generation leader who is not currently in the Cabinet.

They will also have to have demonstrable progress on housing and moving on from austerity.

No sign whatsoever of the former.

The latter, well maybe a bit with next month's 70th NHS spending announcement.

Tell that to the Epping Forest residents complaining about the 11 000 new homes proposed in the Local Plan and it is a similar story across the home counties, the Tories are pushing more housing it is the LDs who are the NIMBYs

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, I agree. If Mercedes have the choice and opt for Bottas over Ricciardo, that's just daft.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean ea it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

There is that - but as we saw with May's long tenure at the Home Office, it might just indicate a great ability to paper over the cracks.

There is, however, talk of a new long term funding settlement for the NHS... let's see how that pans out.

I'm calling it now...it won't be seen as enough. It never is.

If we doubled health spending, it would not be seen as enough.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: gossip, apparently Coulthard reckons Hamilton will quite F1 in 2020.

If accurate, may influence Mercedes' decision on their other driver.

There's a rumour that McLaren might start running an IRL team. I wonder if Lewis would be up for that?

I think Hamilton and Alonso will both spend their F1 retirements in the US, where good drivers can continue to earn the big bucks well into their fifties. Not until they’re definitely out of F1 contention though.

rkrkrk

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?

I wouldn't say most hated.

Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.

He's clearly a talented man, with a successful business career and was widely viewed as having done a good job on the Olympics. But I think he is very much hated.

Who do you think was a more hated health secretary?

Alistair

Nigelb said:

The Trump lawyers’ arguments would have made George III blush.

Though, to be fair, it represents the continuation of a trend started under Bush over the torture arguments (remember the Bybee memo ?)

Yes, 'sane' Republicans who are anti-Trump have to go through a lot of contrition as to explain why they supported Bush's massive executive over reach.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean ea it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.

There is that - but as we saw with May's long tenure at the Home Office, it might just indicate a great ability to paper over the cracks.

There is, however, talk of a new long term funding settlement for the NHS... let's see how that pans out.

I'm calling it now...it won't be seen as enough. It never is.

If we doubled health spending, it would not be seen as enough.

In my view, Jeremy Hunt doesn’t get enough credit for his efforts.

My local surgery has just started last month (for the first time) doing evening and Saturday appointments. I can now see a doctor until 8pm Monday to Friday, and 1pm on Saturdays.

And, there is also now an online eConsult surgery where you can consult your doctor online and get feedback and prescriptions within 24-48 hours.

SandyRentool

TOPPING said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.

Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.

Wulfrun_Phil

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1003535472247951361

He inherited an NHS in pretty rude health. Its state is anything but that now. His tenure of adult social care has also been an utter disaster.

OldKingCole

Elliot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Elliot said:

OldKingCole said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.

I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.

Democrat one.

A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.

Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.

In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany

Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.

The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.

hmmm

the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them

The unreformed boundaries in the UK are still far superior to the Senate or the House.

I don't think people truly appreciate how messed up the US has become. Much of the media is active propaganda, especially on the conservative side, lobbyist money controls the whole system, regulators are run by the industries they 'regulate', the Senate is grossly unrepresentative, and the House and state legislatures are actively rigged. Trump is a symptom of the malfunction more than he is a cure.

It is a terrible thing for the future of democracy worldwide that the most visible example of it is such a perverted version.

After the ‘hanging chads’ fiasco in 2000 Robert Mugabe offered to advise the US on democracy, which, IIRC, the US felt ‘insulting’.

TBH, it didn’t seem such a bad idea.

logical_song

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1003334446697902082?s=21

I expect it's mutual, still rather unprofessional to actually say so.