politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Betfair punters are right the Republicans are set to hold o

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Betfair punters are right the Republicans are set to hold onto the House in the November midterms

Betdata.IO

Read the full story here

rcs1000

I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.

Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.

rcs1000

Here's your fascinating fact.

Bear in mind that Presidents very rarely fail to achieve reelection. The last two to fail were George HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter.

Both of whom saw well above average midterm election results. GHWB lost only 8 House seats, while Jimmy C lost 15.

By contrast, Obama (re-elected) lost 63, Clinton (re-elected) lost 54, and Reagan (re-elected) lost 26.

The only exception to this rule in recent history is GWB, which was in the unique circumstances of the aftermath of 9/11.

DavidL

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.

Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.

Equally I think the worst thing for the Democrats might be to fluke a Senate win (along with the House), electorally, at least.
Though one has too set against that the possibility of another Trump nomination to the Supreme Court and continuing harassment of the Mueller investigation.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Observer, I've heard occasional wibblings about California exiting the US, but can't really see it happening, to be honest.

Nigelb

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

Nigelb

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.

Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.

DavidL

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

TheJezziah

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.

Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.

I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.

Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.

*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.

**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing

DavidL

TheJezziah said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.

Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.

I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.

Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.

*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.

**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing

So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.

not_on_fire

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

SouthamObserver

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

DavidL

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

Sandpit

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

not_on_fire

DavidL said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.

Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)

not_on_fire

Trump’s re-election will depend almost entirely on whether he can hang onto the mid-west states he won from the Dems by a small margin in 2016, namely PA, WI and MI. If the Dems win those back then they win even if Trump keeps OH and FL.

OldKingCole

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.

Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)

I thought primaries were supposed to be good. We’ve tried them here, but IIRC the only candidate who came through and to parliament was Sarah Wollaston.

not_on_fire

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

The Republicans tried to get the independent “Electoral Commissions” rules unconstitutional, but fortunately failed.

MaxPB

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

TheJezziah

DavidL said:

TheJezziah said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.

Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.

I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.

Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.

*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.

**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing

So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.

The argument that a sitting president has no advantage isn't one I made. I was just pointing out that it isn't too rare and but for 9/11 you could well have had as many failed to get reelected of the last 6.

Admittedly Bush failing without 9/11 is a hypothetical but completely plausible, though even if we do disregard it you still have 4-2, which is pretty much the point I was making as from reading about people talking about it without looking it up myself I thought there was a much more slanted record.

Edit: Although as mentioned in my previous post that is a cut off date that suits the argument.

OldKingCole

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

TBH I don’t recall Trump banging on about ‘democracy’ very much. I get the feeling it’s not something he worries about.

not_on_fire

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

To be fair, our system where the seat boundaries are drawn independently still yields a system where about 80% of the seat winners in 2022 can be predicted now with pretty high confidence (perhaps not in Scotland). The real villain is FPTP.

OldKingCole

not_on_fire said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

To be fair, our system where the seat boundaries are drawn independently still yields a system where about 80% of the seat winners in 2022 can be predicted now with pretty high confidence (perhaps not in Scotland). The real villain is FPTP.

Oh good, a potential AV thread!

DavidL

TheJezziah said:

DavidL said:

TheJezziah said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

I

What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.

Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.

I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.

Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.

*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.

**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing

So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.

The argument that a sitting president has no advantage isn't one I made. I was just pointing out that it isn't too rare and but for 9/11 you could well have had as many failed to get reelected of the last 6.

Admittedly Bush failing without 9/11 is a hypothetical but completely plausible, though even if we do disregard it you still have 4-2, which is pretty much the point I was making as from reading about people talking about it without looking it up myself I thought there was a much more slanted record.

Edit: Although as mentioned in my previous post that is a cut off date that suits the argument.

We got on that dangerous path ourselves with the communication allowance of new Labour days. Add that to existing MPs having generous staff allowances and office costs from the public purse together with a salary which allows the incumbent to campaign full time and you have a system that seriously favours the incumbent. No system is prefect but the US is broken, possibly beyond repair.

logical_song

538
"This cycle’s special elections still imply a Democratic wave of historic proportions, while the generic ballot polling still points to a close race for House control. Lots of uncertainty remains, and you should be prepared for either outcome."

not_on_fire

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

Elected judges are another bonkers feature

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

Here's your fascinating fact.

Bear in mind that Presidents very rarely fail to achieve reelection.

So our discussion last week has changed your mind?

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.

Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)

I thought primaries were supposed to be good. We’ve tried them here, but IIRC the only candidate who came through and to parliament was Sarah Wollaston.

I think that the combination of primaries and safe/gerrymandered seats is lethal. It encourages and rewards partisanship. Candidates are more scared of their activist base/possible challenges from within than they are of the electorate. Compromise becomes a dangerous word. The US has been caught in that trap for a while now making Congress unmanageable.

Another problem we have seen with the admittedly small sample of 1 in this country (arguably some of the London Mayors as well), but which we can see in the US, is that candidates who win through a Primary system can respond poorly to party discipline making organising a majority, even when you have one on paper, very difficult.

Primaries seem to me to be a nice idea which does not work in practice.

DavidL

logical_song said:

538
"This cycle’s special elections still imply a Democratic wave of historic proportions, while the generic ballot polling still points to a close race for House control. Lots of uncertainty remains, and you should be prepared for either outcome."

Helpful!

Charles

rcs1000 said:

I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.

Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.

Why would a disaster for Trump be bad for the GOP,

Met another GOP stalwart this week for coffee - she, too, voted for Gary Johnson last time round.

Charles

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

That’s a feature not a bug. The US is a federal system - you can’t judge it compared to a unitary state such as the U.K. Even here some of the regions are over represented in Westminster.

Charles

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.

rkrkrk

rcs1000 said:

I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.

Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.

They hold both now and couldnt get acca repeal done. They need to purge moderate repubs if they want it to happen.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.

But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.

DavidL

not_on_fire said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

Elected judges are another bonkers feature

David's superb piece on Saturday which included statistics about how many Federal Judges Trump has managed to nominate already showed the risk of the alternative. We have this naive view that Judges and the law should be impartial. It is indeed something to aspire to but we should also be clear eyed about what the reality is.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?

If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

not_on_fire

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.

Funny that you recommend a policy that would splinter the Democratic vote. I’m guessing Texas would conveniently be just below the split threshold?


For me another huge issue with US system is that there are elections to the House every 2 years. This puts everyone in a constant campaign mode with no incentive to consider the long term

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/1013874844155379714

not_on_fire

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?

If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

DavidL

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.

Certainly a single state with a population of 40m is causing huge distortions in the system. But inevitably each party will look at this for party advantage rather than the common good.

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.

Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.

I’m not sure why they’d be able to do that in November given they’ve hitherto failed?

Also, if they do hold the House I expect it will be by a small margin.

AlastairMeeks

I’d have thought there’s a touch of value on the Democrats there. Democrats are coming out to vote in special elections.

Sandpit

not_on_fire said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.

ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.

America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.

Elected judges are another bonkers feature

Yes, to an outsider it seems astonishing that the next few months of US politics are going to be dominated by the nomination and election of a judge.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.

But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.

The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.

But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.

The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.

I have to say I think you're stretching things there. Whether or not the Constitution was being exploited by the south, the fact remains that slavery would ultimately have been an irreconcilable issue for both sides. It is rather difficult to see how any Constitution could have reconciled the two sides in a way the extant one did not, especially as Congress was willing to guarantee the continued existence of slavery where it already existed, just not to allow it to spread to the new territories.

Have a good morning.

Sean_F

I expect that a lead of 6% would be sufficient for the Dems to win the House, especially as quite a lot of Republican incumbents are retiring.

The Dems have two problems that are not related to gerrymandering:-

1. Too much support concentrated in very big cities
2. The collapse in their support in small rural States.

Sandpit

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?

If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

The whole issue has got the Democrats and the media completely apoplectic but I can’t see either what has changed in terms of rules (other than enforcement) nor of what the complainants wish to see happen apart from simply ignoring people crossing the border illegally.

Does anyone know (I don’t) what happpens in Britain to children found in lorries at Dover?

DavidL

AlastairMeeks said:

I’d have thought there’s a touch of value on the Democrats there. Democrats are coming out to vote in special elections.

I tend to agree. Gerrymandering works best by making your vote as efficient as possible but ultimately there must be a fair few naturally republican districts in play given the generic lead and the apparent enthusiasm of Democrats. Looks like it is going to be close though.

rottenborough

"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."

https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/

Sean_F

Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.

Alanbrooke

so back in the real world

Angie saves her job for the moment but remains much weakened
Horst Seehofer is the German David Davis
Austria ignores EU and puts up border controls

Nobody in Germany believes this is over. TMerkel = TMay

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article178647532/Pressestimmen-zum-Asylstreit-Das-Drama-wird-weitergehen.html

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.

Funny that you recommend a policy that would splinter the Democratic vote. I’m guessing Texas would conveniently be just below the split threshold?


For me another huge issue with US system is that there are elections to the House every 2 years. This puts everyone in a constant campaign mode with no incentive to consider the long term

I’ve no idea about Texas. I assume that California would end up 4-2 to the Democrats which would more closely reflect the votes cast than the current 2-0 result

Charles

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?

If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Try engaging with the question rather than attacking the poster next time.

I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me

tlg86

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?

logical_song

Charles said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system

With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?

If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Try engaging with the question rather than attacking the poster next time.

I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me

I think in this case facts were being pointed out rather than anyone being attacked.

Foxy

Sean_F said:

I expect that a lead of 6% would be sufficient for the Dems to win the House, especially as quite a lot of Republican incumbents are retiring.

The Dems have two problems that are not related to gerrymandering:-

1. Too much support concentrated in very big cities
2. The collapse in their support in small rural States.

I recall on Trump night watching the counties colour by State. Pennsylvania was nearly all red, apart from Philly, but even in Red States, the major city was blue such as Louisville Kentucky.

Not that there is that much difference in England. There are very few Labour seats with much rural population. The division here is nearly as total, but I suppose the geographic differences are smaller, so voters in true blue Bosworth do mix with voters in Red Leicester.

The US Constitution is rather fossilised, but treated very much like a holy text and very difficult to ammend. Essentiially, the authors tried to establish a form of government of a slightly more democratic version of Georgian England. A powerful executive elected monarch with perogative powers, a powerful independent judicary, a Commons, and a Senate similar to the Lords. For the first century or so Senators were appointed by State governors rather than directly elected.

It will be interesting to see how the Californian referendum on division goes. It may redress the democratic balance a bit. I don't think a State has divided since Virginia and West Virginia in 1863, in unusual Civil War circumstances.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Three_States_Initiative_(2018)

not_on_fire

“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”


Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.

logical_song

Sean_F said:

Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.

538 again:
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s model of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are winning the race for Congress 46.5 percent to 40.1 percent over Republicans. That 6.4-point lead is little changed from their 6.3-point advantage (46.9 percent to 40.7 percent) from last week and just a skosh higher than their 5.9-point lead (45.6 percent to 39.7 percent) one month ago today. As a reminder, experts believe Democrats need to win the House popular vote by around 7 percentage points to flip the chamber."

not_on_fire

@Charles “I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me”

Are you trying to claim your Obama whataboutery was posed from a neutral standpoint?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/seanjonesqc/status/1014046136200581120

Foxy

rottenborough said:

"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."

https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/

It is Brexit Groundhog day again!

But at least there is football later. Sweden over the Swiss, I think. England over Columbia, but could be tight.

tlg86

not_on_fire said:

“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”


Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.

Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?

Alanbrooke

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obama

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border

HYUFD

There is very little evidence for this claim at all, indeed the last seat by seat breakdown for the House of Representatives in November had the Democrats ahead and almost every President loses significant numbers of seats in their first midterms, with the exception being George W Bush in 2001 because of 9/11. In fact in 2006 the last time the Democrats took the House they gained a more than 30 seat majority with an 8% lead, not much different to this poll.

It would also be a huge mistake to suggest that the midterms have any bearing whatsoever on Trump's prospects of re election in 2020. Indeed Bill Clinton and Obama in 1994 and 2010 suffered huge losses in their first midterms and were easily re elected. George W Bush was re elected by just one state in the closest re election of any President since Truman in 2004 despite his party gaining seats in the 2002 midterms. Indeed the last President to lose his re election battle after only one term of his party in the White House was Carter to Reagan in 1980 and his party held the House in 1978 despite losses

Foxy

tlg86 said:

not_on_fire said:

“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”


Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.

Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?

I think it fair to say that most Democrats are fairly Right wing by UK standards.

US attitudes to the poor are coloured by racism, but are also the flipside of the American myth*. In a country that believes that anyone can become rich or President by hard work and opportunity it does rather lay itself open to believing the poor are lacking in effort and ability.

*myth because America has social mobility less than many other OECD countries.

HYUFD

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Alanbrooke

Foxy said:

tlg86 said:

not_on_fire said:

“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”


Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.

Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?

I think it fair to say that most Democrats are fairly Right wing by UK standards.

US attitudes to the poor are coloured by racism, but are also the flipside of the American myth*. In a country that believes that anyone can become rich or President by hard work and opportunity it does rather lay itself open to believing the poor are lacking in effort and ability.

*myth because America has social mobility less than many other OECD countries.

so sort of like the UK under Blair

DecrepitJohnL

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

No it does not because the initial choice -- and quite possibly (as last time) the only choice -- will be made by MPs and not respondents to ConHome voodoo polls.

DavidL

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obama

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border

I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!

From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Here's your fascinating fact.

Bear in mind that Presidents very rarely fail to achieve reelection. The last two to fail were George HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter.

Both of whom saw well above average midterm election results. GHWB lost only 8 House seats, while Jimmy C lost 15.

By contrast, Obama (re-elected) lost 63, Clinton (re-elected) lost 54, and Reagan (re-elected) lost 26.

The only exception to this rule in recent history is GWB, which was in the unique circumstances of the aftermath of 9/11.

Excellent point and as I have argued earlier Americans prefer divided government so it is almost sometimes an advantage to a President's re election chances to have at least one chamber of Congress from the opposite party

RoyalBlue

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?

It's a view I suppose...

No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.

But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.

The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.

Sorry David, but unusually you are quite wrong. As ydoethur has pointed out, the cause of the war was the fundamental and irreconcilable nature of the slave question, with the trade and economic schism as a supporting minor factor.

The only way it could have ended peacefully was if the slaveowners has been bought out, as they were in the British Empire. I don’t know whether that option was ever seriously considered - I’m sure somebody on here does!

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

I hadn't realised that British divers found that Thai football team in the cave. Would they be suitable candidates for the George Cross, and their support team for other honours?

HYUFD

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

No it does not because the initial choice -- and quite possibly (as last time) the only choice -- will be made by MPs and not respondents to ConHome voodoo polls.

And all the evidence is Tory MPs are heading for a Javid v Gove runoff now and rejecting a Boris or Mogg or Williamson etc candidacy just reinforcing the point

MaxPB

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

Indeed. I think Gove realises he's not PM material and could easily be persuaded by team Javid for support in exchange for No 11.

Theresa would be done if they teamed up against her.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combination

HYUFD

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.

Tory members clearly see Javid as more electable it seems

Sean_F

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are much interested in the poor.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combination

At least it would make Gove face up to the Brexit damage to the economy.

Alistair

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.

I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.

Treating slaves as non humans was the major cause of the civil war.

Every flaw in the constitution can be traced back to the compromises over slavery. Every step of the American story from independence to the Civil War is a story about the contortions the country went through to stay united despite having people in it who thought people were property and those who thought it was morally abhorrent.

Big_G_NorthWales

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.

My vote for Javid must have made the difference then !!!

daodao

rottenborough said:

"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."

https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/

It is not in the interest of the EU to relent or compromise on its core values, including the "four freedoms". The UK can't cherry pick - hasn't T May learnt anything.

If BINO is unccetable, the cleanest solution is no deal, with WTO terms initially, as a starting point. It will be painful, particularly for the UK, but that is the price of freedom from being run by Berlin/Brussels. Trading and other agreements can then be rebuilt gradually with the EU where both sides want one, but this will take a long time, as there will be an atmosphere of mutual hostility for many years to come. Brexit is effectively a declaration of war (in a non-combatant sense) by the UK against the EU.

logical_song

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obama

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border

I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!

From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

Quite.
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

Sean_F

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.

538 again:
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s model of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are winning the race for Congress 46.5 percent to 40.1 percent over Republicans. That 6.4-point lead is little changed from their 6.3-point advantage (46.9 percent to 40.7 percent) from last week and just a skosh higher than their 5.9-point lead (45.6 percent to 39.7 percent) one month ago today. As a reminder, experts believe Democrats need to win the House popular vote by around 7 percentage points to flip the chamber."

That's similar to studies suggesting that the Conservatives needed an 11% lead to win a majority. In practice, you get votes where you need them if there's a big shift in your favour.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

I hadn't realised that British divers found that Thai football team in the cave. Would they be suitable candidates for the George Cross, and their support team for other honours?

Not the GC but maybe an OBE apiece -- and even that would be down to news value. This is not their first time, and how often do we hand out gongs to (say) mountain rescue teams?

The Thai government is more likely to lavish honours on them.

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustaain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might se

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco.o learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obama

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border

I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!

From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

normally I wouldn't post from ZH but this one is sourced on US Govt documentation

seems likely to me as all people will go through the same processing centres

what the two articles together show is the US media is serially split between Trumps and anti Trump. it has become as unbiased as a Remain Leave split in the UK.

I neither believe Obama or Trump are faultless, just that both have PR machines with horns locked

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.

Tory members clearly see Javid as more electable it seems

This one does but Gove as Chancellor would be excellent

another_richard

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!

But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.

Yet San Francisco is one of the most Democrat dominated areas in what proclaims to be one of the most progressive states in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_San_Francisco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Francisco

Roger

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combination

I'm starting to feel nauseous.....

Scott_P

daodao said:

Brexit is effectively a declaration of war (in a non-combatant sense) by the UK against the EU.

Who will be the first UK politician to claim that a trade war is "the will of the people" ?

Alanbrooke

logical_song said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

not_on_fire said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.

It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.

Unlikely.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.

It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.

Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.

I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?

San Francisco. That wason the Mexican border.

Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?

It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...

It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.

Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obama

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border

I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!

From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

Quite.
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

I often read the guardian or the new statesman, do you only read articles which tell you are right all the time ?

Jonathan

You’d have to be mad and egotistical to want to be PM in the immediate post Brexit aftermath.

It’s a crowded field.

Wondering if Mrs Gove would be happy with no11.

Big_G_NorthWales

Roger said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.

However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.


https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html

Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.

Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combination

I'm starting to feel nauseous.....

It would change the political climate and Corbyn would come under attack from good communicators in a complete change from TM's difficulty in expressing herself