Anyhoo, if I may crave the indulgence of PB for the moment. I have a question for you...
I'm after placing a bet on Brexit for insurance purposes. The event I wish to insure against is a no-deal Brexit. For previously expressed reasons (see previous posts) I don't bet online, so high-street shops only. To me the best option seems to be Betfred's 11/4 on leaving the EU by March 29 (deal or no deal), which is a nice compromise compared to the others. But it is still date-dependent.
So. Can anybody indicate a good high-street odds on a no-deal departure that isn't date-dependent?
This doesn't really answer your question (at all, in fact) but it sounds to me as though your goals might be better served by shorting the pound.
Except that is not true either given 301 MPs have already voted for permanent Customs Union and even 202 MPs voted for May's Deal which is far more than the 100 to 150 MPs who want No Deal or indeed the 122 MPs who voted against invoking Article 50
There seem to be two strands of thinking out there at the moment:
1) May persuades ERG and DUP to support a WDA that includes no backstop. She then goes to the EU who, seeing the potential impact of a No Deal exit for the UK, agree to shaft the Irish, drop the backstop and as a result the revised WDA passes the Commons.
2) May tells the EU the WDA is dead in the water as it stands and it looks like No Deal. The EU offer a permanent CU which May reluctantly supports to avoid No Deal and that passes the Commons despite a large Conservative rebellion.
I find huge flaws and contradictions in both these scenarios foremost among which is they start from the EU agreeing to change the WDA - they have shown no sign of doing so.
We are therefore left to see which side will blink first.
1 is highly unlikely. The EU as they made clear today will not water down the backstop.
2 Is more likely to get EU agreement given Juncker today said the EU would agree to amendments based on a permanent Customs Union and then to pass the Commons but as it is already Corbyn's policy it will be him proposing it not May but May will likely reluctantly have to accept it as the will of the Commons and it would then pass the Lords and get Royal Assent.
Unless of course panicked No Dealers suddenly realise this and swap to May's current Deal to avoid 2.
We are therefore left to see which side will blink first.
The way to get a deal is for May to blink while appearing to stand firm, and the EU to stand firm while appearing to blink. I.e. for May to "force" the EU to accept further concessions.
Millwall and Everton fans involved in disgraceful scenes before FA Cup clash as one supporter is slashed with a KNIFE during mass brawl outside Surrey Quays station
Anyhoo, if I may crave the indulgence of PB for the moment. I have a question for you...
I'm after placing a bet on Brexit for insurance purposes. The event I wish to insure against is a no-deal Brexit. For previously expressed reasons (see previous posts) I don't bet online, so high-street shops only. To me the best option seems to be Betfred's 11/4 on leaving the EU by March 29 (deal or no deal), which is a nice compromise compared to the others. But it is still date-dependent.
So. Can anybody indicate a good high-street odds on a no-deal departure that isn't date-dependent?
This doesn't really answer your question (at all, in fact) but it sounds to me as though your goals might be better served by shorting the pound.
1 is highly unlikely. The EU as they made clear today will not water down the backstop.
2 Is more likely to get EU agreement given Juncker today said the EU would agree to amendments based on a permanent Customs Union and then to pass the Commons but as it is already Corbyn's policy it will be him proposing it not May but May will likely reluctantly have to accept it as the will of the Commons and it would then pass the Lords and get Royal Assent.
I agree re the first - wishful thinking from some.
What do you think the impact on the Conservative Party would be of a permanent Customs Union passing Parliament and especially if May, as you say, "reluctantly has to accept it"?
1 is highly unlikely. The EU as they made clear today will not water down the backstop.
2 Is more likely to get EU agreement given Juncker today said the EU would agree to amendments based on a permanent Customs Union and then to pass the Commons but as it is already Corbyn's policy it will be him proposing it not May but May will likely reluctantly have to accept it as the will of the Commons and it would then pass the Lords and get Royal Assent.
I agree re the first - wishful thinking from some.
What do you think the impact on the Conservative Party would be of a permanent Customs Union passing Parliament and especially if May, as you say, "reluctantly has to accept it"?
Not as much as revoking Brexit altogether but there would be an impact, however there would also be an impact for Labour as we would still be leaving the EU with No EUref2.
Both ERG No Dealers and People's Vote Remainers would still not be happy but the Tories could comfort themselves that they are still getting Brexit and leaving the single market and Labour could comfort themselves that have avoided No Deal or hard Brexit
Millwall and Everton fans involved in disgraceful scenes before FA Cup clash as one supporter is slashed with a KNIFE during mass brawl outside Surrey Quays station
It'd have probably still happened at 12:30, but I was shocked that the Met allowed that game to be at 17:30.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months. Call me sceptical of their accuracy if that is how much it can change in such a short period of time.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
Do I think Brexit is having an impact, sure. Do I think we can proper calculate this, unlikely (certainly over such a short period of time). Is it useful, not really. We are where we are.
What would be better is use of time for a New Labour led think tank (or any really) would be how we can move forward. What policies could be put in place to best position the country going forward following Brexit.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
As I said, your only discernible objection is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
As I said, your only discernible objection is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
Typical of the death cult’s faith-based approach.
As I said, we are where we are, and I have better things to do than analysis their model that is fluctuating wildly. And I suggest they would be better doing something more useful than trying to guess the unguessable (and even if they can, it is little use, as who knows what happens in the next week, month, year etc).
Its makes a good headline to reinforce the views of some. I am more concerned with how we move forward.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
As I said, your only discernible objection is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
Typical of the death cult’s faith-based approach.
As I said, we are where we are, and I have better things to do than analysis their model that is fluctuating wildly. And I suggest they would be better doing something more useful than trying to guess the unguessable (and even if they can, it is little use).
Sure. We can consider why you’re emotionally so hostile to a simple but effective way of measuring the immediate damage that Brexit has done to Britain. What is it that makes you foam at the mouth about a normal method of measuring economic harm?
If we end up in a permanent CU to avoid a backstop ( the very reason why we didn’t want the backstop was so we weren’t permanently tied to EU rules and tariffs etc.) then the Tory party is finished , it will self destruct and the whole reason we left the EU to become an independent trading nation again will not happen , we will be a permanent vassal state of the EU . If that is what it comes to we may as well remain and give up whatever sovereignty we have left to become part of the USE . It really seems that it is truly impossible to leave the EU and clearly democracy is finished in the UK . Our political masters were never going to allow the peasants to leave their gravy train
Rubbish. If the Commons votes for permanent Customs Union most Uref2
How is being tied into a permanent customs union regaining sovereignty?
As it is put of the EU and single market and ends free movement
But still being aligned to their regulations and tariffs and unable to forge independent trade deals , this unable to compete with them for trade. We may as well remain , and go whole hog and have a seat at the table . Permanent CU is the worst of all worlds
Yes I know, Leave means Leavers like you will have a tant liking
The whole backstop issue has been an EU trap from the start to get us to remain or at least neutralise us from being competitive against them and TM fell right into it. It’s what happens when you put a remainer in charge of exiting the EU.
The EU were always going to offer a less thsn perfect Deal or No Deal, they were not going to do us any favours. Since most MPs will not accept No Deal if we are still to Brexit a less then perfect Deal it will have to be
Remain or no deal are the only two options worth pursuing...
Nope. Remain or No Deal are only the two options worth pursuing for fanatics who have no interest in compromise.
Which means they are the only two options realistically to be pursued, given parliament is being driven by the fanatics and those interested in compromise are outnumbered.
Let’s say - for example - in 10 years the EU has refused to allow us to leave the backstop.
An elected U.K. government says “we are giving you three years notice that we arecterminating this treaty”.
IMV there will be zero damage to the U.K. from terminating a Treaty regardless of the fact there is no exit clause
No, as I said if competence was pivotal in winning US elections Romney would have won a landslide in 2012 not lost. Romney was a far more successful and competent businessman than Trump but lacked Trump's populist appeal. It is he who best appeals to blue collar voters in the rustbelt and their fears and concerns that is pivotal
As long as he sticks to that message he will likely win again, especially if the Democrats again pick another coastal, liberal elitist who does not connect with the rustbelt
He won the largest GOP victory in the Electoral College since 1988 because he swept the rustbelt and the vast majority of the upper Midwest by appealing to blue collar voters.
He is not down because we do not know yet who his Democrat opponent will be, if it is another coastal, elitist liberal Trump will likely win the Midwest and the Electoral College again
is there not an argument regardless what he’s up against, voters know for sure this time what they will be getting? Do you think this increases or decreases his voters?
I have just seen a report on Sky by Hannah Thomas-Peter. IMO she is the best up and coming journalist there is. She was in Trump country finding support for the border wall because voters equate it to doing something about the damage drugs is doing in their community and families. voters see Trump as trying to do something about the drug problem, whilst his opponents simply trying to do something about him. 🤔
Reporting from "Trump country" is the dumbest shit. Nixon retained big support (for, you know, a criminal) and it was a staple of American journalism of the time to report from "Nixon country" and matvel at how well he was retaining support.
Where they need to be reporting from is suburbia which Trump took in 2016 and then started to bleed support from almost immediately.
Meanwhile your post suggests shit can come in different grades of dumbness. Does this read across directly to a stool chart? Would clusters suggest cohesive thought, a loud splash indicative of a deep one?
When they put out the request for super poo donors, did they issue any criteria with it? It would be a waste to send them a donation they couldn’t do anything with. Whist finishing off some custard I gave it some thought, and they are going to transplant it into another person they would probably need something substantial they could hold?
Trump country is my words not Hannah. I was wrong. It was snowy rust belt surprisingly won needs to hold up in country. So the findings are relevant.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
As I said, your only discernible objection is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
Typical of the death cult’s faith-based approach.
As I said, we are where we are, and I have better things to do than analysis their model that is fluctuating wildly. And I suggest they would be better doing something more useful than trying to guess the unguessable (and even if they can, it is little use).
Sure. We can consider why you’re emotionally so hostile to a simple but effective way of measuring the immediate damage that Brexit has done to Britain. What is it that makes you foam at the mouth about a normal method of measuring economic harm?
Alastair: if a pensions consultant helping you on a case altered his methodology such that his estimate of the liability halved would you accept that unquestioningly or would you sceptically challenge his approach?
Michigan, for example, went for Romney 44%. They went for Trump 47%. The Republican level of support was basically unchanged, Hillary just hemorraged support compared to Obama.
If you'd wanted to you could have gone to the various deep red parts of Michigan in 2012 and taken all the vox pops you wanted and found a powerful wellspring of support for their unlikely hero Romney. That didn't mean Romeny would win. And no one did that as it didn't fit a narrative.
So the size of their guestimate has nearly halved in 6 months.
It seems a reasonable enough approach. I appreciate that the death cult will not approve.
You aren’t exactly neutral on the issue yourself.
I take on board facts rather than scream disapproval. So far you’ve done the opposite.
It isn’t a fact. It is at best a guestimate that appears to have rapidly adjusted in a very short period of time.
They’ve given a methodology. Your sole objection to it, so far as any is discernible, is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
I would be extremely concerned about the validity of any methodology that I came up with that altered by 40-50% in a very short time period when the prevailing conditioned hadn't changed.
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
As I said, your only discernible objection is that you don’t like the output and its implications.
Typical of the death cult’s faith-based approach.
As I said, we are where we are, and I have better things to do than analysis their model that is fluctuating wildly. And I suggest they would be better doing something more useful than trying to guess the unguessable (and even if they can, it is little use).
Sure. We can consider why you’re emotionally so hostile to a simple but effective way of measuring the immediate damage that Brexit has done to Britain. What is it that makes you foam at the mouth about a normal method of measuring economic harm?
Alastair: if a pensions consultant helping you on a case altered his methodology such that his estimate of the liability halved would you accept that unquestioningly or would you sceptically challenge his approach?
Have they altered their methodology? It looks more like the death cult Leavers don’t like the results to me.
“Digging up an ancient and arbitrary law in order to prevent paedophiles from communicating with each other is in no way a contribution in protecting children” What a particularly barmy thing to say. ☹️ I would like to say I selectively quoted to put that position in his mouth, but I didnt, these people actually think that. its no wonder so many bad things go on in this world ☹️
It was the fact he shared their values that was key to Trump's win not because he was some brilliant Romney style executive (and in any case given his immigrant ban from Muslim nations, his ban on Guatamalan migration, his tariffs on China, his successful SC nomination etc it is not as if he has not done anything anyway).
Trump will win a second term provided he is seen as sharing blue collar values more than his Democratic opponent
That he appeared to share blue collar values was indeed key to his win. He also needed to appear like a guy who will get things done.
We agree that the latter without the former (e.g. Romney) does not win.
I am further saying that the former without the latter will not win, i.e. if in 2020 Trump still looks authentic on blue collar values but now looks (to his erstwhile base) like a hapless blunderer who will NOT get things done, then he does not get a second term.
Now I think it is difficult to disagree with that - but of course you are free to do so.
It was the fact he shared their values that was key to Trump's win not because he was some brilliant Romney style executive (and in any case given his immigrant ban from Muslim nations, his ban on Guatamalan migration, his tariffs on China, his successful SC nomination etc it is not as if he has not done anything anyway).
Trump will win a second term provided he is seen as sharing blue collar values more than his Democratic opponent
That he appeared to share blue collar values was indeed key to his win. He also needed to appear like a guy who will get things done.
We agree that the latter without the former (e.g. Romney) does not win.
I am further saying that the former without the latter will not win, i.e. if in 2020 Trump still looks authentic on blue collar values but now looks (to his erstwhile base) like a hapless blunderer who will NOT get things done, then he does not get a second term.
Now I think it is difficult to disagree with that - but of course you are free to do so.
If the Democrats pick another liberal coastal elitist Trump will win the rustbelt and the Presidency again regardless, as I pointed out Trump also got plenty done for his base in his first 2 years, he can now simply blame the Democratic Congress for lack of action beyond that
Tesco is getting rid of 15,000 jobs and closing meat, fish and deli counters across the country, according to reports. Bakeries will also be axed, with frozen dough set to be used instead of fresh as part of a £1.5 billion cost-saving measure.
If it is already costing us that much, and thus can be blamed for negative things, then people cannot dismiss any good news by going on about how Brexit hasn't happened yet. Either it is ok to count it toward effects now, positive or negative, or it isn't.
Was always a nonsense phrase. It is a shame so many purported anti no dealers secretly seem to agree with it, while signalling their virtue about how horrified they supposedly are by the prospect. And how many people seem more intent on focusing the blame for no deal than stopping it.
Why the flying f*ck are the Tories still focusing on who gets to be in the goddamned Cabinet when the dust settles? Are there not more important things to be worrying about right now? For christ's sake, May is about to probably lose yet another vote because senior ministers have been going around saying they'll resign unless they get a free vote (which surely means whatever they want a free vote on will pass), and so the whole interminable Brexit business looks like being dragged out pointlessly yet further, and Hunt and Boris and co are only bothered about measuring the curtains for No. 10?
Trump only increased Republican vote share in rust belt states by paltry amounts
Up 3 percentage points in Michigan. Less than 2 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pensylvania.
But let's get even realer
Only 100,000 more votes in Michigan Trump even had less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. Trump won getting less votes!
So that's the real reason, Republican vote basically held steady whilst Hillary absolutely tanked the Democratic vote. Losing 7 points or more in each state.
All these "Rust Belt Trump support still holding up" long form pieces are utter crud and are being written to a pre ordained narrative. They could all have been written about Romney support in the rust belt and they would be just as fatuous.
True. But, at the risk of confusing matters, he can keep ALL of this group and still lose. If he loses a small fraction of the college educated voters from 2016. It is these, particularly in the suburbs, and especially women who are deserting him.
Yes, he could. The complexities of the US electoral college are fascinating. What I'm hoping is that the sheer ghastliness of the man will have become apparent to so many by 2020 that the usual nuances will not matter.
That's not what it says Mr Roland Smith, it says they are prepared to introduce it in the event of disorder, riot level disorder at that. A big enough story on its own without a summary which makes it sound like an automatic inevitability of no deal Brexit.
That's not what it says Mr Roland Smith, it says they are prepared to introduce it in the event of disorder, riot level disorder at that. A big enough story on its own without a summary which makes it sound like an automatic inevitability of no deal Brexit.
I believe there is a saying for this...I just can't quite remember what it is.
Why the flying f*ck are the Tories still focusing on who gets to be in the goddamned Cabinet when the dust settles? Are there not more important things to be worrying about right now? For christ's sake, May is about to probably lose yet another vote because senior ministers have been going around saying they'll resign unless they get a free vote (which surely means whatever they want a free vote on will pass), and so the whole interminable Brexit business looks like being dragged out pointlessly yet further, and Hunt and Boris and co are only bothered about measuring the curtains for No. 10?
What tremendous wankers.
Well there is always labour - but they have Corbyn who is worse
True. But, at the risk of confusing matters, he can keep ALL of this group and still lose. If he loses a small fraction of the college educated voters from 2016. It is these, particularly in the suburbs, and especially women who are deserting him.
Yes, he could. The complexities of the US electoral college are fascinating. What I'm hoping is that the sheer ghastliness of the man will have become apparent to so many by 2020 that the usual nuances will not matter.
The Dems just need someone with a moderately competent campaign staff.
Trump country is my words not Hannah. I was wrong. It was snowy rust belt surprisingly won needs to hold up in country. So the findings are relevant.
Michigan, for example, went for Romney 44%. They went for Trump 47%. The Republican level of support was basically unchanged, Hillary just hemorraged support compared to Obama.
If you'd wanted to you could have gone to the various deep red parts of Michigan in 2012 and taken all the vox pops you wanted and found a powerful wellspring of support for their unlikely hero Romney. That didn't mean Romeny would win. And no one did that as it didn't fit a narrative. Vox pops are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Are all bags of rocks noted for being dumb? Is that not equivalent to saying coconuts are crazy, when coconuts aren’t crazy at all? Unless you want to argue coconuts are crazy?
I suspect you are one of these people my Aunty Sally warned me would say a horse has six legs, two hind ones and fore in the front so I shouldn’t waste time arguing with you. However, You are strongly suggesting all vox popping is a bit of a waste of time, and I have an anecdote to share. I went vox popping myself, with a you-er at the height of Poll Tax unpopularity shortly before it brought Maggie down, all five people I asked what do you think of the poll tax supported it, two insisted I called it community charge. My conclusion was, in conflict with a media driven narrative it wasn’t really that unpopular, I was bold enough to report that. Probably not too different than what Hannah has done on sky today.
If you were angry at the scourge of drugs in your home town, and someone convinced you a border wall would do something about it, why wouldn’t you support it? At half the cost of what British government gives to Northgern Ireland every year, what Trumps proposing is pretty cheap if you feel it will have a positive impact on drug problem, why is it so crazy for voters to support it? What’s wrong with a reporter finding that sentiment and honestly reporting it?
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
You are quite wrong about that, and your insistence that remainers are the only adults is barmy, and just as tone deaf and cult like as those you deplore. It is not false equivalence in the slightest, because the judge of that is looking at the potential consequences of their actions, not trying to assess their motivations and preferred outcomes as you seem to be doing, deciding that because they want remain, and remaining is good, therefore they must be acting in an adult fashion. Not so.
I happen to now believe that remaining is our best option, but the frantic push which has enabled it has also, as a consequence, made no deal a very real possibility without any acknowledgement by crocodile tear spewing phonies like Grieve that that is what they are risking, nor of the hypocrisy of some of them in authorising the triggering of A50 and then whining like babies about the very thing they set in motion, treating us like idiots by pretending they did not know what they were doing and would never accept an outcome they set in motion as a default.
Obviously the no deal leavers have had a far greater impact in terms of pushing no deal, but the remainer ultras are no different in behaviour - duplicitous in their stated aim (many are still pretending they want delay, rather than remain), unwilling to accept any compromise because of a near religious belief in the morality of their actions, and, most vitally, willing to do anything, at any cost, to get what they want.
It's the logic of a toddler, and some remainers do engage in it. I don't know why you find that hard to accept - it is not the case that it makes the ultra leavers less responsible for a bad outcome, but the ultra remainers are not adult. Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
If the Democrats pick another liberal coastal elitist Trump will win the rustbelt and the Presidency again regardless, as I pointed out Trump also got plenty done for his base in his first 2 years, he can now simply blame the Democratic Congress for lack of action beyond that
You are still not quite following me.
The assertion is that if - IF - Trump by 2020 is viewed by a substantial part of his 2016 base not as a can-do guy but as a can't-do guy, then he will not be winning, regardless of whether they still think he shares their values.
The likelihood of the IF statement becoming true is a separate matter.
Trump only increased Republican vote share in rust belt states by paltry amounts
Up 3 percentage points in Michigan. Less than 2 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pensylvania.
But let's get even realer
Only 100,000 more votes in Michigan Trump even had less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. Trump won getting less votes!
So that's the real reason, Republican vote basically held steady whilst Hillary absolutely tanked the Democratic vote. Losing 7 points or more in each state.
All these "Rust Belt Trump support still holding up" long form pieces are utter crud and are being written to a pre ordained narrative. They could all have been written about Romney support in the rust belt and they would be just as fatuous.
Romney won college educated voters but lost voters who had only some college education or no education higher than high school.
Trump lost college educated voters but won voters who had only some college education or no education higher than high school.
So the blue collar rustbelt vote holding up for Trump is correct and could not have been written about Romney. So the reason Trump got a higher voteshare in the key Midwestern and rustbelt states then Romney was driven by blue collar voters, college educated voters in those states gave less support to Romney than Trump
Trump only increased Republican vote share in rust belt states by paltry amounts
Up 3 percentage points in Michigan. Less than 2 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pensylvania.
But let's get even realer
Only 100,000 more votes in Michigan Trump even had less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. Trump won getting less votes!
So that's the real reason, Republican vote basically held steady whilst Hillary absolutely tanked the Democratic vote. Losing 7 points or more in each state.
All these "Rust Belt Trump support still holding up" long form pieces are utter crud and are being written to a pre ordained narrative. They could all have been written about Romney support in the rust belt and they would be just as fatuous.
And the electoral college efficiency of his votes was freakish.
If the Democrats pick another liberal coastal elitist Trump will win the rustbelt and the Presidency again regardless, as I pointed out Trump also got plenty done for his base in his first 2 years, he can now simply blame the Democratic Congress for lack of action beyond that
You are still not quite following me.
The assertion is that if - IF - Trump by 2020 is viewed by a substantial part of his 2016 base not as a can-do guy but as a can't-do guy, then he will not be winning, regardless of whether they still think he shares their values.
The likelihood of the IF statement becoming true is a separate matter.
Even the assertion I think is debatable if the Democrats pick another coastal liberal elitist rather than a candidate who can connect with blue collar voters
Are all bags of rocks noted for being dumb? Is that not equivalent to saying coconuts are crazy, when coconuts aren’t crazy at all? Unless you want to argue coconuts are crazy?
I suspect you are one of these people my Aunty Sally warned me would say a horse has six legs, two hind ones and fore in the front so I shouldn’t waste time arguing with you. However, You are strongly suggesting all vox popping is a bit of a waste of time, and I have an anecdote to share. I went vox popping myself, with a you-er at the height of Poll Tax unpopularity shortly before it brought Maggie down, all five people I asked what do you think of the poll tax supported it, two insisted I called it community charge. My conclusion was, in conflict with a media driven narrative it wasn’t really that unpopular, I was bold enough to report that. Probably not too different than what Hannah has done on sky today.
If you were angry at the scourge of drugs in your home town, and someone convinced you a border wall would do something about it, why wouldn’t you support it? At half the cost of what British government gives to Northgern Ireland every year, what Trumps proposing is pretty cheap if you feel it will have a positive impact on drug problem, why is it so crazy for voters to support it? What’s wrong with a reporter finding that sentiment and honestly reporting it?
Because it is to fit a pre written narrative that trump is strongly popular in these crucial swing states. But he is no more popular than Romney, a noted massive loser (although note my earlier comments about the uncommented on narrowness of Obama's 2012 election victory).
Vox pops can be shaped to be anything you want them to be. And if you go to an area that has reliably voted 45% Republican for years, and the go to the bits of the state that voted 65% Trump gfff course you are going to find a large number of people who support the Presidents policies.
Now if you go into Highland Park and find high support for Trump then you have a news story. But reporters aren't. They are going into historically repilable Republican voting areas and acting suprised or presenting as news that habitual Republican voters favour the Republican president and his policies.
Trump only increased Republican vote share in rust belt states by paltry amounts
Up 3 percentage points in Michigan. Less than 2 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pensylvania.
But let's get even realer
Only 100,000 more votes in Michigan Trump even had less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. Trump won getting less votes!
So that's the real reason, Republican vote basically held steady whilst Hillary absolutely tanked the Democratic vote. Losing 7 points or more in each state.
All these "Rust Belt Trump support still holding up" long form pieces are utter crud and are being written to a pre ordained narrative. They could all have been written about Romney support in the rust belt and they would be just as fatuous.
Romney won college educated voters but lost voters who had only some college education or no education higher than high school.
Trump lost college educated voters but won voters who had only some college education or no education higher than high school.
So the blue collar rustbelt vote holding up for Trump is correct and could not have been written about Romney. So the reason Trump got a higher voteshare in the key Midwestern and rustbelt states then Romney was driven by blue collar voters, college educated voters in those states gave less support to Romney than Trump
Sorry that last sentemce should say college educated voters in those states gave less support to Trump than Romney
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
Anyone who describes Cooper as “extremist” has a severe case of Brexit poisoning.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
If we get a No Deal Brexit, it will be wholly owned by May and the Hard Brexiters. It is May who fired the starting pistol, and Hard Brexiters who have continually pushed the Ovenden Window so far right.
May’s deal only looks like a fair compromise if you are willing to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
Anyone who describes Cooper as “extremist” has a severe case of Brexit poisoning.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
If we get a No Deal Brexit, it will be wholly owned by May and the Hard Brexiters. It is May who fired the starting pistol, and Hard Brexiters who have continually pushed the Ovenden Window so far right.
May’s deal only looks like a fair compromise if you are willing to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
It's so cool how everyone you disagree with is an extremist, and everyone you agree with isn't. I can totally see how that'd make you think that you're Right and all the people you disagree with are Wrong.
Even the assertion I think is debatable if the Democrats pick another coastal liberal elitist rather than a candidate who can connect with blue collar voters
Well, he would only have to lose a small fraction of his blue collar base to be toast, ceteris paribus. So I think it's fair to assume that a collapse in their perception of his ability to deliver would be quite sufficient.
On a broader note, I think you are in danger of assessing the next US election too exclusively through the lens of the last one. The 'poor white trash' constituency is an important section of the electorate, damn right they are, but there is a lot more to it than that.
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
Anyone who describes Cooper as “extremist” has a severe case of Brexit poisoning.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
If we get a No Deal Brexit, it will be wholly owned by May and the Hard Brexiters. It is May who fired the starting pistol, and Hard Brexiters who have continually pushed the Ovenden Window so far right.
May’s deal only looks like a fair compromise if you are willing to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
It's so cool how everyone you disagree with is an extremist, and everyone you agree with isn't. I can totally see how that'd make you think that you're Right and all the people you disagree with are Wrong.
Did you read what I wrote? I doubt you are an extremist, but you do seem to be a bit dim.
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
Anyone who describes Cooper as “extremist” has a severe case of Brexit poisoning.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
If we get a No Deal Brexit, it will be wholly owned by May and the Hard Brexiters. It is May who fired the starting pistol, and Hard Brexiters who have continually pushed the Ovenden Window so far right.
May’s deal only looks like a fair compromise if you are willing to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
It's so cool how everyone you disagree with is an extremist, and everyone you agree with isn't. I can totally see how that'd make you think that you're Right and all the people you disagree with are Wrong.
Did you read what I wrote? I doubt you are an extremist, but you do seem to be a bit dim.
I read it. Wish I hadn't.
You listed a number of examples of extremism. They were, unfailingly, all from people or organisations in favour of enacting Brexit. Do you think it's possible for anyone on the other side of the debate to be extremist?
And yet, as has just been said on Sky paper review, all this weeks negative stories are not changing views
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
This false equivalence between extreme Brexiters like JRM, and Remainers who are simply desperate to avoid national hari-kiri, is not right.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
Anyone who describes Cooper as “extremist” has a severe case of Brexit poisoning.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
Iwilling to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
It's so cool how everyone you disagree with is an extremist, and everyone you agree with isn't. I can totally see how that'd make you think that you're Right and all the people you disagree with are Wrong.
Did you read what I wrote? I doubt you are an extremist, but you do seem to be a bit dim.
I read it. Wish I hadn't.
You listed a number of examples of extremism. They were, unfailingly, all from people or organisations in favour of enacting Brexit. Do you think it's possible for anyone on the other side of the debate to be extremist?
Of course I do.
My whole point is that extremism should be used sparingly for examples of quasi-totalitarian language - appeals to violence, suspension of democratic process, or inflammatory delegitimisation of political opponents.
Like it or not, it tends to be Brexiters doing all the running here.
Even the assertion I think is debatable if the Democrats pick another coastal liberal elitist rather than a candidate who can connect with blue collar voters
Well, he would only have to lose a small fraction of his blue collar base to be toast, ceteris paribus. So I think it's fair to assume that a collapse in their perception of his ability to deliver would be quite sufficient.
On a broader note, I think you are in danger of assessing the next US election too exclusively through the lens of the last one. The 'poor white trash' constituency is an important section of the electorate, damn right they are, but there is a lot more to it than that.
He will only lose a section of his base if the Democrats have a candidate who can connect with them, which Hillary certainly could not, if not they will stick with Trump.
It was not so much 'poor white trash' who won the swing states for Trump as the white lower middle class and skilled working class
Comments
2 Is more likely to get EU agreement given Juncker today said the EU would agree to amendments based on a permanent Customs Union and then to pass the Commons but as it is already Corbyn's policy it will be him proposing it not May but May will likely reluctantly have to accept it as the will of the Commons and it would then pass the Lords and get Royal Assent.
Unless of course panicked No Dealers suddenly realise this and swap to May's current Deal to avoid 2.
You’re still asking your mummy where babies come from.
Millwall and Everton fans involved in disgraceful scenes before FA Cup clash as one supporter is slashed with a KNIFE during mass brawl outside Surrey Quays station
What do you think the impact on the Conservative Party would be of a permanent Customs Union passing Parliament and especially if May, as you say, "reluctantly has to accept it"?
Both ERG No Dealers and People's Vote Remainers would still not be happy but the Tories could comfort themselves that they are still getting Brexit and leaving the single market and Labour could comfort themselves that have avoided No Deal or hard Brexit
https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018
We saw the official Treasury model when properly analysed had all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and absolute worst case scenarios.
Do I think Brexit is having an impact, sure. Do I think we can proper calculate this, unlikely (certainly over such a short period of time). Is it useful, not really. We are where we are.
What would be better is use of time for a New Labour led think tank (or any really) would be how we can move forward. What policies could be put in place to best position the country going forward following Brexit.
Typical of the death cult’s faith-based approach.
Its makes a good headline to reinforce the views of some. I am more concerned with how we move forward.
And you know I am not a leaver, don't you.
An elected U.K. government says “we are giving you three years notice that we arecterminating this treaty”.
IMV there will be zero damage to the U.K. from terminating a Treaty regardless of the fact there is no exit clause
When they put out the request for super poo donors, did they issue any criteria with it? It would be a waste to send them a donation they couldn’t do anything with. Whist finishing off some custard I gave it some thought, and they are going to transplant it into another person they would probably need something substantial they could hold?
Trump country is my words not Hannah. I was wrong. It was snowy rust belt surprisingly won needs to hold up in country. So the findings are relevant.
https://twitter.com/TimesCorbyn/status/980885201571205121
If you'd wanted to you could have gone to the various deep red parts of Michigan in 2012 and taken all the vox pops you wanted and found a powerful wellspring of support for their unlikely hero Romney. That didn't mean Romeny would win. And no one did that as it didn't fit a narrative.
Vox pops are dumber than a bag of rocks.
What a particularly barmy thing to say. ☹️ I would like to say I selectively quoted to put that position in his mouth, but I didnt, these people actually think that. its no wonder so many bad things go on in this world ☹️
We agree that the latter without the former (e.g. Romney) does not win.
I am further saying that the former without the latter will not win, i.e. if in 2020 Trump still looks authentic on blue collar values but now looks (to his erstwhile base) like a hapless blunderer who will NOT get things done, then he does not get a second term.
Now I think it is difficult to disagree with that - but of course you are free to do so.
http://metro.co.uk/2019/01/26/tesco-axe-15000-jobs-close-meat-fish-deli-counters-8397180
Each side is locked in its own extremism
And we are all going to pay a heavy price unless somehow both sides move towards each other
There is a deal ready and waiting - not perfect but it is better than the extremes
What tremendous wankers.
Up 3 percentage points in Michigan.
Less than 2 percentage points in Wisconsin and Pensylvania.
But let's get even realer
Only 100,000 more votes in Michigan
Trump even had less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. Trump won getting less votes!
So that's the real reason, Republican vote basically held steady whilst Hillary absolutely tanked the Democratic vote. Losing 7 points or more in each state.
All these "Rust Belt Trump support still holding up" long form pieces are utter crud and are being written to a pre ordained narrative. They could all have been written about Romney support in the rust belt and they would be just as fatuous.
Remainers are not extreme. We are the adults in the room. You cannot compromise with a cult.
Mind you the paper will be on line in the next few minutes
I suspect you are one of these people my Aunty Sally warned me would say a horse has six legs, two hind ones and fore in the front so I shouldn’t waste time arguing with you. However, You are strongly suggesting all vox popping is a bit of a waste of time, and I have an anecdote to share. I went vox popping myself, with a you-er at the height of Poll Tax unpopularity shortly before it brought Maggie down, all five people I asked what do you think of the poll tax supported it, two insisted I called it community charge. My conclusion was, in conflict with a media driven narrative it wasn’t really that unpopular, I was bold enough to report that. Probably not too different than what Hannah has done on sky today.
If you were angry at the scourge of drugs in your home town, and someone convinced you a border wall would do something about it, why wouldn’t you support it? At half the cost of what British government gives to Northgern Ireland every year, what Trumps proposing is pretty cheap if you feel it will have a positive impact on drug problem, why is it so crazy for voters to support it? What’s wrong with a reporter finding that sentiment and honestly reporting it?
We are where we are because we have succumbed to populist idiocy.
Fudging, hedging, and wibbling about “both sides” has only emboldened the lunatics.
Such is the ruin of a country.
I happen to now believe that remaining is our best option, but the frantic push which has enabled it has also, as a consequence, made no deal a very real possibility without any acknowledgement by crocodile tear spewing phonies like Grieve that that is what they are risking, nor of the hypocrisy of some of them in authorising the triggering of A50 and then whining like babies about the very thing they set in motion, treating us like idiots by pretending they did not know what they were doing and would never accept an outcome they set in motion as a default.
Obviously the no deal leavers have had a far greater impact in terms of pushing no deal, but the remainer ultras are no different in behaviour - duplicitous in their stated aim (many are still pretending they want delay, rather than remain), unwilling to accept any compromise because of a near religious belief in the morality of their actions, and, most vitally, willing to do anything, at any cost, to get what they want.
It's the logic of a toddler, and some remainers do engage in it. I don't know why you find that hard to accept - it is not the case that it makes the ultra leavers less responsible for a bad outcome, but the ultra remainers are not adult. Never compromising, being dishonest in intention like Cooper and Grieve, risking everything? That's not extreme in your eyes? It is.
The assertion is that if - IF - Trump by 2020 is viewed by a substantial part of his 2016 base not as a can-do guy but as a can't-do guy, then he will not be winning, regardless of whether they still think he shares their values.
The likelihood of the IF statement becoming true is a separate matter.
Trump lost college educated voters but won voters who had only some college education or no education higher than high school.
So the blue collar rustbelt vote holding up for Trump is correct and could not have been written about Romney. So the reason Trump got a higher voteshare in the key Midwestern and rustbelt states then Romney was driven by blue collar voters, college educated voters in those states gave less support to Romney than Trump
Vox pops can be shaped to be anything you want them to be. And if you go to an area that has reliably voted 45% Republican for years, and the go to the bits of the state that voted 65% Trump gfff course you are going to find a large number of people who support the Presidents policies.
Now if you go into Highland Park and find high support for Trump then you have a news story. But reporters aren't. They are going into historically repilable Republican voting areas and acting suprised or presenting as news that habitual Republican voters favour the Republican president and his policies.
Extremist describes the kind of mad language we get from Mark Francois (Teutonic arrogance), Rees-Mogg (prorogue Parliament), and various Daily Mail front page headlines (Saboteurs etc), and others.
You may think that Cooper is being disingenuous. I happen not to. But even if I did, I wouldn’t describe her as “extremist”.
If we get a No Deal Brexit, it will be wholly owned by May and the Hard Brexiters. It is May who fired the starting pistol, and Hard Brexiters who have continually pushed the Ovenden Window so far right.
May’s deal only looks like a fair compromise if you are willing to accept that a gun to your head is conducive to clear-headed deliberation. It is not extremism to ask that the gun be lowered and dropped.
On a broader note, I think you are in danger of assessing the next US election too exclusively through the lens of the last one. The 'poor white trash' constituency is an important section of the electorate, damn right they are, but there is a lot more to it than that.
I doubt you are an extremist, but you do seem to be a bit dim.
You listed a number of examples of extremism. They were, unfailingly, all from people or organisations in favour of enacting Brexit. Do you think it's possible for anyone on the other side of the debate to be extremist?
My whole point is that extremism should be used sparingly for examples of quasi-totalitarian language - appeals to violence, suspension of democratic process, or inflammatory delegitimisation of political opponents.
Like it or not, it tends to be Brexiters doing all the running here.
It was not so much 'poor white trash' who won the swing states for Trump as the white lower middle class and skilled working class