Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
No, I do not screech. My thesis is consistent. And correct.
One thing that will need more thought the next time out in the USA is the implications of California voting early. Just by voting first those somewhat eccentric and atypical people of Iowa have had an absurd amount of influence on the process as have the independently minded liberals of New Hampshire. How long before candidates start to think about whether they can be bothered pretending to care about corn subsidies in Iowa and just focus on delegate rich California instead?
If they do a different sort of candidate will survive the initial winnowing.
So from the politico piece someone posted a thread or two back it sounds like the CA ballots will go out basically on the day of the Iowa caucus. I wonder if this won't actually make Iowa *more* important; You still need to winnow the field to work out which candidates are viable, but a candidate who underperforms in Iowa won't be able to come back in NH or SC as candidates have in the past, because an important chunk of the electorate will have already voted on the back of the Iowa results.
So California results in around 2 months after Iowa then ? California's election process is embarrassingly slow.
So they have 29 days of early voting so it goes:
Feb 4th: Iowa, CA ballots go out Feb 11th: New Hampshire ... March 3rd: California
Not sure how long it'll take them to count but I guess if it's a long time there will be some kind of provisional results or something and the media will move on? (Not sure when bets will pay out though...)
This is unreal. May wants to pretend there is a difference between ‘time limited’ and ‘temporary’? Sounds like something Bill Clinton would try.
This cannot end well. You really just can’t behave like this.
You are out of date. The latest is "not indefinitely". Which makes all the difference...
I am reminded of the (alleged) meeting of Oxford dons to decide on some investment. Land, said an economist. Land has kept it’s value for the last 500 years. 'You have to bear in mind', piped up a history don, 'that the last 500 years have been somewhat exceptional'
Obamacare is a somewhat serious attempt to address the lack of effectiveness of the US healthcare system. The significant weaknesses with it are ones that are a matter of faith for Republicans, who are barking up the wrong tree concerning Obamacare. In particular the fact it's not obligatory. An effective healthcare system needs to be standardized, mandated by government and compulsory. That's because people don't consume the benefits of healthcare at the time they pay for them . People who can afford healthcare are wealthy, healthy and young. People who need healthcare are poor, ill and old. Often they are the same people at different points in their lives.
May, a remainer, has salami sliced Brexit until there is nothing left. What political skill. Out thought the Leave team all the way.
Won't seem so clever when Jezza is walking into Number 10 as Prime Minister and the Tories are out of office for 20 years (assuming they don't split, in which case they'll be out of office forever)
On current polls Corbyn will only walk into office propped up by the LDs and SNP and with the Tories largest party and with a Tory majority in England and that is even with UKIP up post Chequers.
Less Blair landslide 1997 than scraping into Number 10 under the doormat by his fingernails!
A way out for moderate Labour MPs perhaps - if Labour need SNP/LD support and the price is no Corbyn as PM?
I note my prediction yesterday morning has come to pass, albeit a few hours late. 9am R4 news bulletin saw Downing St spokesman confirm that any customs union would be time limited.
Good.
I'll offer you a further prediction, that the time limit will be hedged in interesting ways, essentially coming down to "can end by mutual agreement".
Then no deal. We cannot be tied into a customs union. That would be a humiliation for a sovereign nation.
What is humiliating about entering into a voluntary agreement? Governments have done it all the time throughout history.
UK will be licking EU boots, total capitulation , just as Tories planned so they can then have another vote to go back in.
Shiw us how to do it Makc. You've been.licking Nicola,'s boots forever
You stupid cretin, we don't lick anyone's boots up here , the people are sovereign , not grovelling subjects like halfwitted dullards such as yourself. She has only been there 5 minutes and if she does not do the business she will be out on her arse , no snivelling grovelling bunch of wobbly jellies like the Tories. Westminstrer Tories will stay at ground level with tongues extended.
Lie down dear. Have a nice cup of tea. You’ll soon feel better!
Long ago Malc and I made our peace, and I believe I am one tory that he seems to think is ok but of course being married to a Scots lass for 55 years does help
THere are a few good ones G, even if a bit misplaced. DavidL is a decent chap as well.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
No, I do not screech. My thesis is consistent. And correct.
It really isn't. For it to be true, it would have to have swung 1.3 million votes, or a large proportion thereof (and excepting those who were enfranchised and voted for remain). That is a massive hurdle for your so-called 'thesis' to climb, and one that seems utterly ridiculous.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Not to mention his work in everything that's good and patriotic about Hungary. We need to ask him for productivity tips.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Christopher Hitchens called it "the godfather of all other forms of racism".
Given it managed to infect the two most influential religions of the modern world (Catholicism and Islam) that's not entirely surprising,
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
No, I do not screech. My thesis is consistent. And correct.
It really isn't. For it to be true, it would have to have swung 1.3 million votes, or a large proportion thereof (and excepting those who were enfranchised and voted for remain). That is a massive hurdle for your so-called 'thesis' to climb, and one that seems utterly ridiculous.
I'm not claiming it swung any votes at all. You seem to have misunderstood entirely and are arguing against a straw man. For what it is worth, I think Cummings is right that it was the £350 million for the NHS on the side of a bus that swung most votes but that is a completely different matter.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Christopher Hitchens called it "the godfather of all other forms of racism".
Given it managed to infect the two most influential religions of the modern world (Catholicism and Islam) that's not entirely surprising,
This cult of Soros - l layered on top of antimsemitism but strangely personal to him - is weird.
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
No, I do not screech. My thesis is consistent. And correct.
It really isn't. For it to be true, it would have to have swung 1.3 million votes, or a large proportion thereof (and excepting those who were enfranchised and voted for remain). That is a massive hurdle for your so-called 'thesis' to climb, and one that seems utterly ridiculous.
I'm not claiming it swung any votes at all. You seem to have misunderstood entirely and are arguing against a straw man. For what it is worth, I think Cummings is right that it was the £350 million for the NHS on the side of a bus that swung most votes but that is a completely different matter.
No, but you’d need 1.3 million people who would have voted Remain to be disenfranchised. Which seems a slight stretch.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Christopher Hitchens called it "the godfather of all other forms of racism".
Given it managed to infect the two most influential religions of the modern world (Catholicism and Islam) that's not entirely surprising,
This cult of Soros - l layered on top of antimsemitism but strangely personal to him - is weird.
Surely not to anyone who has read 1984 and remembers Goldstein.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
An exception to that rule is the phone, people tend to use it in the upright position (with annoying consequences).
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Anti-semitism is, surely a dangerous card to play if one is involved in finance in the US?
That’s not to be construed as a criticism of those involved etc.
Two interesting views on the unfolding disaster that is UC:
On the one hand it might be right for an incoming Labour government to abandon altogether. On the other, it will be far too late: rolling a single benefit out into six streams just wont be done.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
The first lesson of politics - "if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately" and the second "however bad your day is, Government is infinitely more satisfying than Opposition".
Of course there were many different reasons people voted for Brexit or Remain. But to vote at all, they needed to be registered, and Number 10 had put its thumb on the scale. Two thumbs, in fact, first on one side then the other. Ironically, this cost them the referendum and power.
Let us go further. It might also explain where Theresa May mislaid her majority just a year later.
Don't be a silly sausage. Your conclusions are bereft of evidence; you should remember that correlation does not imply causation.
You are obsessing on one small factor that suits a political point you want to make, and expanding it to a conclusion that backs that political point. That does not make it true ...
Me, Number 10, Arron Banks, the official and unofficial Leave campaigns ... they all thought so. That's why it was controversial at the time. Hmm. I wonder if Dominic Cummings said anything about it.
And it is not even really a political point I am making, so much as the law of unintended consequences.
As far as I'm aware they didn't think that remain lost because of that, which is your claim. I believe you are confusing (deliberately?) two different things.
And of course you're making a political point, since you're a poster who always screeches about gerrymandering whenever the Conservatives want to change the political process. Your intent is clear.
No, I do not screech. My thesis is consistent. And correct.
It really isn't. For it to be true, it would have to have swung 1.3 million votes, or a large proportion thereof (and excepting those who were enfranchised and voted for remain). That is a massive hurdle for your so-called 'thesis' to climb, and one that seems utterly ridiculous.
I'm not claiming it swung any votes at all. You seem to have misunderstood entirely and are arguing against a straw man. For what it is worth, I think Cummings is right that it was the £350 million for the NHS on the side of a bus that swung most votes but that is a completely different matter.
You should go back and read what you originally wrote.
Incidentally, Resolution say there will be 3.2 million families who are losers under UC.
Bye, bye marginal seats.
You and I have been banging on about this for ages.
Is anyone else shocked that Iain Duncan Smith screwed up?
Screw ups by IDS are a feature not a bug but the decision by Osborne to use the introduction of UC as an opportunity to slice £3bn off the benefits bill certainly didn't help and will almost certainly be reversed in the budget.
Putting IDS's moronic tendencies aside, however, I find it remarkable that our supposedly esteemed Civil Service can have completely failed to bring this simplified benefit into operation in a time scale approaching that of the length of WW1 and WW2 put together. It's truly pathetic.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
An exception to that rule is the phone, people tend to use it in the upright position (with annoying consequences).
The cool kids seem to have taken to holding phones horizontally.
Soros must be a busy man - Trump says he's pulling the string in the US, too. Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
Anti-semitism is, surely a dangerous card to play if one is involved in finance in the US?
That’s not to be construed as a criticism of those involved etc.
'. Two Whitehall sources have told BuzzFeed News that Nov. 27 has been pencilled in for the Commons vote if a deal is agreed with the EU. “Hell week is when the deal comes to the Commons,” a government source said.' On that basis, there will be no election before mid-January!
'. Two Whitehall sources have told BuzzFeed News that Nov. 27 has been pencilled in for the Commons vote if a deal is agreed with the EU. “Hell week is when the deal comes to the Commons,” a government source said.' On that basis, there will be no election before mid-January!
A GE campaign over Christmas?? Good luck with that one.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
Edit: It's gone to the winner in every election bar two, since 1928.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
An exception to that rule is the phone, people tend to use it in the upright position (with annoying consequences).
The cool kids seem to have taken to holding phones horizontally.
I have always done so, and am not remotely cool... and was a kid several decades back.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
I wouldn't call her a 'conventional Democrat' really. She voted for the Keystone pipeline and voted against stricter gun control laws. But yes I think the fact she's facing a 'generic' republican and not a Roy Moore/Todd Akin style candidate is what will be her undoing.
She's also a victim of 'straight ticket voting' which is much more common given how polarized the US electorate now is. If people vote Republican for President, they're far less likely to split the ticket and vote for Democrats for other federal and local races, and Visa Versa.
This is what will kill the Democrats in the senate eventually, given each state has 2 senators regardless of population size, and smaller states are disproportionately GOP leaning. It's going to make the Dems getting to 50 more and more difficult.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
Phones and digital cameras mimic mechanical cameras. You turn the phone and you turn the frame. That decision was made long, long before the iPhone was a twinkle in Steve Job's eye.
[normally I'm happy to blame Apple for pretty much anything]
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
Until Clinton carried the state in 1996, Florida had only supported the Democrats since 1948 in the LBJ 1964 landslide and Carter's 1976 win.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
I’m sure I’m missing something, but isn’t the issue that the sensor is rectangular (4:3 typically) so the fact that the lens circle is circular is irrelevant - the sensor rotates when the phone does.
Of course most video is taken well below the still resolution of the sensor so it probably wouldn’t be a problem to shoot in 16:9 across the ‘narrow’ aspect of the sensor, but letterboxing the shot across the phone screen while shooting would make it much harder to see what you’re filming so unlikely to be popular. That said, an option to tell your phone to always shoot in landscape regardless of handset orientation would be useful for those who want to take proper video.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
Phones and digital cameras mimic mechanical cameras. You turn the phone and you turn the frame. That decision was made long, long before the iPhone was a twinkle in Steve Job's eye.
[normally I'm happy to blame Apple for pretty much anything]
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
Until Clinton carried the state in 1996, Florida had only supported the Democrats since 1948 in the LBJ 1964 landslide and Carter's 1976 win.
Yes, the two times the Democrats won the presidency in the intervening period.
With the latest polling out of Tennessee the senate is basically done now. 538 is only giving the Dems a plausible chance by somehow making North Dakota a viable win for them.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
Until Clinton carried the state in 1996, Florida had only supported the Democrats since 1948 in the LBJ 1964 landslide and Carter's 1976 win.
1960 and 1992 are the only two years that Florida has not supported the winner, since 1928.
So, Republican in 1928, Democratic from 1932 to 1948, Republican from 1952 to 1960, Democratic in 1964, Republican in 1968 and 1972, Democratic in 1876, Republican from 1980 to 1992, Democratic in 1996, Republican in 2000 (by 539 votes!) and 2004, Democratic in 2008 and 2012, and Republican in 2016.
OGH is absolutely right regarding health care. If you have a conversation with any American outside the 1%, then healthcare will be one of their biggest concerns.
I find it astonishing that the UK government spends less than the US one on healthcare, in either absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP, and manages to cover everyone.
Winning the House could be a disaster for the Republicans, because their base wants to get rid of Obamacare. (And the Affordable Care Act, unlike Obamacare, is actually rather popular.)
I would be tempted to put a bet on the Reps holding the house if the odds were better.
Real Clear Politics has moved the house in the last week from 205D, 194R, 36 Toss up to 204D, 199R, 32 Toss up.
If you split the toss ups 50:50 that would give 220D-215R which is not exactly secure for the Dems.
The NY Times are live polling 4 Congressional Districts and have R ahead in 2 and D ahead in 2.
Looking at the Senate, it is now possible that the Reps could gain seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the better polls in TX, TN and NV are also matched in MT and IN when they are next polled.
If Heitkamp does lose, she'll manage to lose against every historic precedent.
The last incumbent senator of a party not in control the white house to lose re-election in a wave year for their own party would be Democrat Howard Cannon of Nevada in 1982.
In every wave midterm election since then ('86, '94, '06, '10, '14) every incumbent on the right side of the wave has won.
She's a conventional Democrat running in a state which Trump won by 36 points and still has a high approval rating in.
The other Senate seat in ND is currently held by the Republicans with a 62% majority. The GOP won the Govenorship by 57%.
She's well down in the polls against a well known and liked local candidate. Frankly she needs a scandal to fall in to her lap at this point.
Quite a few states appear to be trending to the Democrats though on a demographic basis - Texas - Arizona - Georgia - North Carolina - maybe Florida.
Not really North Carolina or Florida, and the Democrats regularly punch below their demographic weight in Texas.
At Presidential elections the Democrats have become much more competitive in North Carolina and Florida compared with the 1980s and earlier. The former still leans Republican but Obama carried the state in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.Until the 1990s Florida had been a safe Republican state rather than the 'toss-up ' of recent elections.
Florida has been a bellwether State for at least 60 years.
Until Clinton carried the state in 1996, Florida had only supported the Democrats since 1948 in the LBJ 1964 landslide and Carter's 1976 win.
1960 and 1992 are the only two years that Florida has not supported the winner, since 1928.
So, Republican in 1928, Democratic from 1932 to 1948, Republican from 1952 to 1960, Democratic in 1964, Republican in 1968 and 1972, Democratic in 1876, Republican from 1980 to 1992, Democratic in 1996, Republican in 2000 (by 539 votes!) and 2004, Democratic in 2008 and 2012, and Republican in 2016.
That's a swing State by any definition.
And likely to remain so with the southern part of the state (Geographically in the north), combining with a set of heavy Dem cities that play out more like the north-eastern seaboard in the south of the state. They seem to counterbalance each other well, whereas say VA is definitely tilting more DEM with the cities in the east outweighing the more rural areas.
I would be tempted to put a bet on the Reps holding the house if the odds were better.
Real Clear Politics has moved the house in the last week from 205D, 194R, 36 Toss up to 204D, 199R, 32 Toss up.
If you split the toss ups 50:50 that would give 220D-215R which is not exactly secure for the Dems.
The NY Times are live polling 4 Congressional Districts and have R ahead in 2 and D ahead in 2.
Looking at the Senate, it is now possible that the Reps could gain seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the better polls in TX, TN and NV are also matched in MT and IN when they are next polled.
It's always been likely the Republicans would gain seats in the Senate. The Dems were - simply - just defending too many Deep Red states, like North Dakota, Montana and West Virginia, faced a very popular ex-Governor in Florida, and were hoping for unlikely pick-ups suck as Texas or Tennessee.
The 538 model has always had the most likely scenario being the Republicans picking up one Senate seat net, with them picking up two being more likely than the Dems gaining one net. Those seem pretty accurate to me.
In the House, the issue for the Republicans is that the polling from wealthy suburbs - which are reliably Republican normally - has been pretty awful. (Actually, really awful.) It's a pattern of concentrated losses which mean I think the roughly 75% chance for them to take the House is about right.
Then, early Thursday morning, federal agents arrested Correia on charges that he stole almost a quarter of a million dollars from seven people who had invested in his start-up, and spent the money on adult entertainment, airfare, a dating service, designer clothes, hotels, jewelry, trips to casinos and a Mercedes-Benz. Hours later, he pleaded not guilty to 13 counts of wire and tax fraud.
It was, he told reporters, “not my best Thursday.”...
I would be tempted to put a bet on the Reps holding the house if the odds were better.
Real Clear Politics has moved the house in the last week from 205D, 194R, 36 Toss up to 204D, 199R, 32 Toss up.
If you split the toss ups 50:50 that would give 220D-215R which is not exactly secure for the Dems.
The NY Times are live polling 4 Congressional Districts and have R ahead in 2 and D ahead in 2.
Looking at the Senate, it is now possible that the Reps could gain seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the better polls in TX, TN and NV are also matched in MT and IN when they are next polled.
It's always been likely the Republicans would gain seats in the Senate. The Dems were - simply - just defending too many Deep Red states, like North Dakota, Montana and West Virginia, faced a very popular ex-Governor in Florida, and were hoping for unlikely pick-ups suck as Texas or Tennessee.
The 538 model has always had the most likely scenario being the Republicans picking up one Senate seat net, with them picking up two being more likely than the Dems gaining one net. Those seem pretty accurate to me.
In the House, the issue for the Republicans is that the polling from wealthy suburbs - which are reliably Republican normally - has been pretty awful. (Actually, really awful.) It's a pattern of concentrated losses which mean I think the roughly 75% chance for them to take the House is about right.
538 has, in fact, moved their forecast very slightly in the direction of the Dems in the last week. See:
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
This is one of my bugbears. My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
Phones and digital cameras mimic mechanical cameras. You turn the phone and you turn the frame. That decision was made long, long before the iPhone was a twinkle in Steve Job's eye.
[normally I'm happy to blame Apple for pretty much anything]
There's a word for the general tendency of the digital to mimic the manual, even when they need not - digital "bookselves" that are pictures of bookshelves with "books".
Comments
Feb 4th: Iowa, CA ballots go out
Feb 11th: New Hampshire
...
March 3rd: California
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/bernie-sanders-california-2020-primary-891120
Not sure how long it'll take them to count but I guess if it's a long time there will be some kind of provisional results or something and the media will move on? (Not sure when bets will pay out though...)
'You have to bear in mind', piped up a history don, 'that the last 500 years have been somewhat exceptional'
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1050687525218643968
Antisemitism seems find a ready home at both extremes of the political spectrum.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/99001/furious-row-explodes-after-chris-williamson
Look into my eyes not around my eyes
and your gone
Given it managed to infect the two most influential religions of the modern world (Catholicism and Islam) that's not entirely surprising,
But like the rest of Blustering Brexiteers she is all fart and no follow through.
There should be a stringent law that nobody is allowed to post a portrait video ever. They are the devils own work.
My eyes are next to each other, rather than one on top of each other. Being a terretsrial creature, most of the action I see goes along, rather than up and down. WHY doe people persist in filming in portrait? I recently saw someone post a portrait film on facebook of something he was watching on his telly. You can't get much more inherently-landscape than that.
But in fairness some of the more dramatic ones may be taken under extreme duress...
That’s not to be construed as a criticism of those involved etc.
On the one hand it might be right for an incoming Labour government to abandon altogether. On the other, it will be far too late: rolling a single benefit out into six streams just wont be done.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/no-ones-in-credit-after-this-benefits-mess-wm6vpjg2j
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/universal-credit-the-honesty-we-owe-and-the-changes-we-need/
Bye, bye marginal seats.
https://twitter.com/WalrusWinks/status/939297756732055552
Was it Apple that started this abomination ?
Very true. Why doesn’t someone do this? Please!!!
Yes, I am willing to forgive those ... just about
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Is anyone else shocked that Iain Duncan Smith screwed up?
Presumably the TV show was a documentary about the ambulatory function of millipedes?
May needs Hammond to fix this fast, or her party is toast.
Even if it was he’s not been Chancellor for over two years, someone else could have fixed it.
UC is fundamentally flawed, no wonder the government gagging people from criticising it or Esther McVey, positively Orwellian.
Also explains why the government buried a key finding about benefit sanctions.
(And again, no deal = electoral wipeout.)
Putting IDS's moronic tendencies aside, however, I find it remarkable that our supposedly esteemed Civil Service can have completely failed to bring this simplified benefit into operation in a time scale approaching that of the length of WW1 and WW2 put together. It's truly pathetic.
The embrace of antisemitic tropes by the Republicans is pretty clear:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/10/10/why-trump-and-the-republicans-keep-talking-about-george-soros/
On that basis, there will be no election before mid-January!
Edit: It's gone to the winner in every election bar two, since 1928.
Agree, though, of course about ‘action’ videos and views.
It tries to fix one problem and causes dozens more.
This is not something going well, if it was the government wouldn’t have to do this.
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1050499312608776192?s=21
Hamleys worst year since 1760.
[normally I'm happy to blame Apple for pretty much anything]
Of course most video is taken well below the still resolution of the sensor so it probably wouldn’t be a problem to shoot in 16:9 across the ‘narrow’ aspect of the sensor, but letterboxing the shot across the phone screen while shooting would make it much harder to see what you’re filming so unlikely to be popular. That said, an option to tell your phone to always shoot in landscape regardless of handset orientation would be useful for those who want to take proper video.
But that statistic is nonetheless a mark of astonishing progress.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/10/the-remarkable-persistence-of-24x36.html
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1050742936885964800
So, Republican in 1928, Democratic from 1932 to 1948, Republican from 1952 to 1960, Democratic in 1964, Republican in 1968 and 1972, Democratic in 1876, Republican from 1980 to 1992, Democratic in 1996, Republican in 2000 (by 539 votes!) and 2004, Democratic in 2008 and 2012, and Republican in 2016.
That's a swing State by any definition.
Mr. tpfkar, indeed. Boiled frogs are in political fashion.
I find it astonishing that the UK government spends less than the US one on healthcare, in either absolute terms or as a percentage of GDP, and manages to cover everyone.
Winning the House could be a disaster for the Republicans, because their base wants to get rid of Obamacare. (And the Affordable Care Act, unlike Obamacare, is actually rather popular.)
Real Clear Politics has moved the house in the last week from 205D, 194R, 36 Toss up to 204D, 199R, 32 Toss up.
If you split the toss ups 50:50 that would give 220D-215R which is not exactly secure for the Dems.
The NY Times are live polling 4 Congressional Districts and have R ahead in 2 and D ahead in 2.
Looking at the Senate, it is now possible that the Reps could gain seats. I wouldn't be surprised if the better polls in TX, TN and NV are also matched in MT and IN when they are next polled.
The 538 model has always had the most likely scenario being the Republicans picking up one Senate seat net, with them picking up two being more likely than the Dems gaining one net. Those seem pretty accurate to me.
In the House, the issue for the Republicans is that the polling from wealthy suburbs - which are reliably Republican normally - has been pretty awful. (Actually, really awful.) It's a pattern of concentrated losses which mean I think the roughly 75% chance for them to take the House is about right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/10/12/elected-mayor-at-23-in-struggling-fall-river-jasiel-f-correia-ii-had-the-makings-of-a-rising-star-until-thursday/
At 23, he beat out a better-funded incumbent to become the city’s youngest-ever mayor.
Then, early Thursday morning, federal agents arrested Correia on charges that he stole almost a quarter of a million dollars from seven people who had invested in his start-up, and spent the money on adult entertainment, airfare, a dating service, designer clothes, hotels, jewelry, trips to casinos and a Mercedes-Benz. Hours later, he pleaded not guilty to 13 counts of wire and tax fraud.
It was, he told reporters, “not my best Thursday.”...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/
I see that providers of pizzas will now have to reduce their size or their toppings. This government is worse than Blair's for nanny-Statism.
https://twitter.com/HeroOfHornska/status/1050680742462857217
You can't have team members whining in the press whilst working on a project. You have to make your arguments within the team.
Continent cut off by fog.