I just sat down to watch the news,having posted my Obamacare comments, to learn that NBC News is reporting that in the 2010 Obamacare regulations published in the Federal Register, there is a sentence buried deep saying that "a reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate is 40% to 67%".
Obama of course at the time was saying repeatedly to all and sundry that if you like your health plan you can keep it.
Even the liberal media is now anti-Obamacare.
I have no idea what the effect of all this will be, but I doubt it's positive.
How are the Republicans going to play this one though? Millions of people (*) are going to have subsidized care through the exchanges or coverage they couldn't get before because of pre-existing conditions, which depends in turn on the subsidies and the mandate. Are the Republicans still going to be talking about repeal? If not, aren't the Tea Party going to be miffed?
* On current trends more like four guys in Maine and a golden retriever called Alan, but they'll have the sign-ups figured out by 2016...
Truman came after a three-term winner, so that's five terms for the same party, not two, and then you're stopping right before you get another example of a party winning a third term. The only way you're getting an effect there is by taking cases where the incumbent didn't complete their term, which is quite a different case: You've already had a new face, and your incumbent is someone who wouldn't necessarily have been able to withstand the normal selection process.
Where you'd have a point would be that if Obama gets shot or quits in a scandal, the historical precedents don't look great for President Biden's reelection.
My pattern stretches from 1945 onwards, a time of US hegemony.
The USA's world role, economic prosperity etc were totally different after that point to what had come before.
There are different patterns for earlier eras of American history and will doubtless be different patterns for future eras.
But it requires a major shock to the political system for these patterns to change - a civil war or a depression followed by a world war.
Certainly the loss of US hegemoney with the rise of China etc is likely to have electoral reprecussions in the USA.
But the electoral consequence of these effects in 2016 will make it more difficult for the Democrats to be reelected.
Internationally there's a good case for saying post-1945 is a new era, but domestically if you're going to draw a line somewhere it would be the Civil Rights Movement, which flipped the parties around.
I just sat down to watch the news,having posted my Obamacare comments, to learn that NBC News is reporting that in the 2010 Obamacare regulations published in the Federal Register, there is a sentence buried deep saying that "a reasonable range for the percentage of individual policies that would terminate is 40% to 67%".
Obama of course at the time was saying repeatedly to all and sundry that if you like your health plan you can keep it.
Even the liberal media is now anti-Obamacare.
I have no idea what the effect of all this will be, but I doubt it's positive.
How are the Republicans going to play this one though? Millions of people (*) are going to have subsidized care through the exchanges or coverage they couldn't get before because of pre-existing conditions, which depends in turn on the subsidies and the mandate. Are the Republicans still going to be talking about repeal? If not, aren't the Tea Party going to be miffed?
* On current trends more like four guys in Maine and a golden retriever called Alan, but they'll have the sign-ups figured out by 2016...
I have no idea how this will play out - there is just no data yet on exactly what is happening. It appears as though the number signing on for Medicaid (free) is exceeding the number signing up for Obamacare (paid) by factors of 10 and 20 to 1, which would be a disaster. But again, as yet hard numbers are unavailable thanks to the administration stonewalling.
I will know more in a couple of days, hopefully.
As usual, your information is utterly inaccurate - the golden retriever is called Rex :-)
YouGov, Lab on +6. Both Cameron & Miliband see some easing in their qualities - driven by softening among VI eg Cameron "sticks to what he believes in OA" 22 (-3), VI: 50 (-4), Miliband, "in touch with concerns of ordinary people OA: 25 (-2), VI: 58 (-3), but all MOE stuff basically....
As has been discussed on here many times before Obama was a brilliant and innovative candidate but has been a distinctly ordinary President kicking multiple cans down the road and either failing to address or actually aggravating the US's underlying problems. The fact that several years after the crash the largest economy in the world is still heavily dependent upon printing $85bn a month to keep the ship afloat like some medieval despot clipping the coinage is indicative of the extent of the problems. The world, and in particular China, has grown completely dependent on excess US demand. Since the US ran out of money they need to print it to keep the system going. This cannot end well.
What does this have to do with the thread? Well, I think by 2016 some of these chickens will have come home to roost. I think that an even vaguely sane GOP candidate will be in a strong position against any Democrat, even Hilary. I take the point that "vaguely sane" is quite a high bar in the GOP and there is a risk that their candidate will not meet it. I thought Ryan had many sensible things to say about public finance the last time but no one wanted to hear it. Unless he is damaged by the tea party loons in Congress with the shutdown etc I think he willl get a much better audience next time around and the demand for a change of course and some sort of attempt to address the problems that Obama has ignored will be powerful.
Yesterday the Spanish Parliament agreed a motion stating that no one part of the Spanish state could decide its future shape because this is a matter for the whole population of Spain to decide. In effect, that kills off all paths to Catalonia becoming an independent country - at least in a legal sense - for the foreseeable future. The Catalans could declare independence, but it would not be recognised internationally. So it's very different to the situation in Scotland.
Yesterday's vote came after the latest opinion poll in Catalonia found that in a straight Yes/No vote 52% would vote for independence, 41% against, the rest DK, won't say. Again, not like Scotland.
And one other way in which the two countries vary is in media ownership/control. The most widely read newspapers are published locally and tend to be sympathetic to, if not supportive of, separatism; the local TV broadcaster is openly pro-independence; as a language Catalan is utterly dominant these days, especially among the young (Spanish is taught as a foreign language, kids have to be educated in Catalan); and there is the all pervasive influence of FC Barcelona, whose president - elected by the fans - is also pro-independence.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant. Hopefully it is not like that in Scotland either. In Catalonia if you do not support independence you are not considered a Catalan by those who favour separation from Spain.
May I say that I'm surprised that "Peter the Punter" didn't pass this article through the desk of PB's resident US presidential election guru - Moi !!
Blushes modestly ....
Essentially for 2016 it's Hilary's for the asking but does she want it ?
One other issue of note is demographic trends. A number of swing states are trending blue - Virginia being the most notable in the short term as the DC suburbs sprawl out into the state. To a lesser extent this is also filtering into North Carolina.
The Hispanic surge is also having a measurable effect. New Mexico, a state won by Bush Jnr is now off the table for the GOP and Nevada is likewise trending the same. This factor is now eating into GOP numbers in Colorado and Arizona. Crucially the Florida Cuban/Hispanic effect is weakening and long term Texas would not be off the table for the Democrats.
The GOP need an effective strategy for reversing pro Democrat Hispanic trends that presently are running past 2/1.
As has been discussed on here many times before Obama was a brilliant and innovative candidate but has been a distinctly ordinary President kicking multiple cans down the road and either failing to address or actually aggravating the US's underlying problems. The fact that several years after the crash the largest economy in the world is still heavily dependent upon printing $85bn a month to keep the ship afloat like some medieval despot clipping the coinage is indicative of the extent of the problems. The world, and in particular China, has grown completely dependent on excess US demand. Since the US ran out of money they need to print it to keep the system going. This cannot end well.
What does this have to do with the thread? Well, I think by 2016 some of these chickens will have come home to roost. I think that an even vaguely sane GOP candidate will be in a strong position against any Democrat, even Hilary. I take the point that "vaguely sane" is quite a high bar in the GOP and there is a risk that their candidate will not meet it. I thought Ryan had many sensible things to say about public finance the last time but no one wanted to hear it. Unless he is damaged by the tea party loons in Congress with the shutdown etc I think he willl get a much better audience next time around and the demand for a change of course and some sort of attempt to address the problems that Obama has ignored will be powerful.
It's difficult to see what else Obama could have done that would have made dealing with the Tea Party easier. No other US president has faced such blind, unthinking, hate-filled obstructionism. I suspect that given what he inherited history will be a lot kinder to Obama than you are.
Looking to 2016, unless the Republicans solve their Tea Party problem, it's hard to see how they can be successful, unless they come up with a way of fixing the race by limiting voting rights. How do you get to be the Republican candidate without winning over the Tea Party? And if by some miracle you get to the White House, how do you then govern without being totally dependent on Democrats and a few sane Republicans, and if you have to do that, how do you get the 2020 nomination, let alone secure re-election?
@SO - you have to wonder whether the UK government are playing a (lot) cannier game than the Spanish. I can think of nothing that would give the Independence side a greater boost in Scotland than saying "you can only have independence if the English say so!"
So the country with the opportunity to divorce amicably (on current polling) may decide not to, while the one that wants to will be driven to extremes......which ever way the independence referendum goes, I suspect England & Scotland will remain on pretty good terms - I can't see the same happening for Spain & Catalonia.....
I think the "does she really want it?" comments don't pass the common sense test for anyone who has been anywhere near politics. Being US President is clearly difficult but fascinating, and I expect many of us would say yes to it in a millisecond if we were offered the job. Hillary has been in orbit around it forever. Of course she'll want to do it.
I agree with Carlotta there's nothing special there. You can make a case that Clegg and the LibDems are marginally off the bottom (interestingly, without Labour dropping), perhaps helped by some friendly press coverage. I counted no fewer than five pro-Clegg articles in the Standard a couple of days ago, which had to be some sort of editorial decision - nothing editorial, just a series of "Clegg says this" "Clegg does that" pieces, all positive. The Standard, which has to bear its largely pro-Labour audience in mind, is a bit less pro-Government than it has been, and I wonder if they're preparing the ground for refraining from endorsing either major party and giving the LibDems a nod without an explicit endorsement.
It's difficult to see what else Obama could have done that would have made dealing with the Tea Party easier. No other US president has faced such blind, unthinking, hate-filled obstructionism. I suspect that given what he inherited history will be a lot kinder to Obama than you are.
Looking to 2016, unless the Republicans solve their Tea Party problem, it's hard to see how they can be successful, unless they come up with a way of fixing the race by limiting voting rights. How do you get to be the Republican candidate without winning over the Tea Party? And if by some miracle you get to the White House, how do you then govern without being totally dependent on Democrats and a few sane Republicans, and if you have to do that, how do you get the 2020 nomination, let alone secure re-election?
The most obvious solution for the GOP is an hispanic candidate on the ticket but the more fundamental requirement is going to be creating a consensus that the US cannot go on like this. As I said, I think there is a good chance that the building blocks for this consensus will be in place by 2016.
I also think it is worth considering what this "obstructionism" means. Essentially Obama has followed a Ballsian type approach by which domestic demand is kept up by excessive government spending. Republicans have opposed that. Whether they were right to do so or not is hard to tell. Those who claim the answer is obvious are broadly the same as those that claimed economic growth was impossible in the UK without further stimulus and that unemployment would soar rather than fall.
The US health system is a disgrace and clearly something needed to be done. Whether that something was Obamacare and whether that was the priority at a time when the competitiveness of the economy was such a major issue is harder to say. Obama has had the benefit of the shale revolution but has still not got the US on a sustainable path. His economic record is very ordinary, even taking account of the mess he inherited. Look at what Bill Clinton achieved by comparison.
"I think the "does she really want it?" comments don't pass the common sense test for anyone who has been anywhere near politics. Being US President is clearly difficult but fascinating, and I expect many of us would say yes to it in a millisecond if we were offered the job. Hillary has been in orbit around it forever. Of course she'll want to do it."
The common sense reasons Hilary may not want it :
1. Her health and that of Bill 2. Age. 3. She's already been at the top - SoS, Senator and First Lady.
.........................................
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
@SO - you have to wonder whether the UK government are playing a (lot) cannier game than the Spanish. I can think of nothing that would give the Independence side a greater boost in Scotland than saying "you can only have independence if the English say so!"
So the country with the opportunity to divorce amicably (on current polling) may decide not to, while the one that wants to will be driven to extremes......which ever way the independence referendum goes, I suspect England & Scotland will remain on pretty good terms - I can't see the same happening for Spain & Catalonia.....
I suspect that in the end there'll be some kind of grudging compromise between Madrid and Barcelona. Right now, both sides are strongly Nationalist - Spanish on the one side, Catalan on the other - so that makes negotiation very difficult. And both sides have to play to their voting base; something that undoubtedly fans the flames. The polls suggest that if the Catalans got the level of autonomy the Basques now have that would be an acceptable solution. Should PP lose its overall majority at the next general election and become dependent on support from other parties (or go into opposition), that's almost certainly what will happen. But nobody will be very happy about it. A lot of Catalans dislike Spain intensely; a lot of Spaniards dislike Catalonia just as much. They have all been brought up to think that way and will bring their kids up the same. It all looks a lot more grown-up here once you've been down there for a few days, that's for sure. Barcelona is becoming an inward-looking, parochial, humourless, self-conscious place. It's not the confident, vibrant, open-minded city I used to know. It's a real shame, but the CiU/ERC brand of Catalonianism is suffocating the life out of the place.
@SO - you have to wonder whether the UK government are playing a (lot) cannier game than the Spanish. I can think of nothing that would give the Independence side a greater boost in Scotland than saying "you can only have independence if the English say so!"
So the country with the opportunity to divorce amicably (on current polling) may decide not to, while the one that wants to will be driven to extremes......which ever way the independence referendum goes, I suspect England & Scotland will remain on pretty good terms - I can't see the same happening for Spain & Catalonia.....
I suspect that in the end there'll be some kind of grudging compromise between Madrid and Barcelona. Right now, both sides are strongly Nationalist - Spanish on the one side, Catalan on the other - so that makes negotiation very difficult. And both sides have to play to their voting base; something that undoubtedly fans the flames. The polls suggest that if the Catalans got the level of autonomy the Basques now have that would be an acceptable solution. Should PP lose its overall majority at the next general election and become dependent on support from other parties (or go into opposition), that's almost certainly what will happen. But nobody will be very happy about it. A lot of Catalans dislike Spain intensely; a lot of Spaniards dislike Catalonia just as much. They have all been brought up to think that way and will bring their kids up the same. It all looks a lot more grown-up here once you've been down there for a few days, that's for sure. Barcelona is becoming an inward-looking, parochial, humourless, self-conscious place. It's not the confident, vibrant, open-minded city I used to know. It's a real shame, but the CiU/ERC brand of Catalonianism is suffocating the life out of the place.
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is current position on HS2 ?
Be careful asking that too much - he'll accuse you of stalking him ...
I always enjoyed stalking on the estates .... and the thought of a stuffed Nick Palmer trophy on the wall does engender a broad smile !!
PBers whose bent runs to stalking may wish to note the Cluny Castle Estate near Kingussie in the Highlands is presently for sale. The estate runs to over 10,000 acres and has some of the finest stalking in Scotland.
In the 19th century Queen Victoria considered purchasing the estate but eventually opted for Balmoral.
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
Hadn't seen your earlier requests, sorry. I'm leaning against (though I think the party leadership is leaning the other way and will say so this week). Basically the overcrowding issue doesn't seem to me sufficiently salient to be worth prioritising £40 billion. I've often had to stand on part of the London-Nottingham route. It's a nuisance, but not in the same league as Britain's other issues. The messianic zeal of supporters (hello, Josiah) is also off-putting, though I'm trying not to let that influence me beyond the odd peevish comment on pb!
Yesterday the Spanish Parliament agreed a motion stating that no one part of the Spanish state could decide its future shape because this is a matter for the whole population of Spain to decide. In effect, that kills off all paths to Catalonia becoming an independent country - at least in a legal sense - for the foreseeable future. The Catalans could declare independence, but it would not be recognised internationally. So it's very different to the situation in Scotland.
Yesterday's vote came after the latest opinion poll in Catalonia found that in a straight Yes/No vote 52% would vote for independence, 41% against, the rest DK, won't say. Again, not like Scotland.
And one other way in which the two countries vary is in media ownership/control. The most widely read newspapers are published locally and tend to be sympathetic to, if not supportive of, separatism; the local TV broadcaster is openly pro-independence; as a language Catalan is utterly dominant these days, especially among the young (Spanish is taught as a foreign language, kids have to be educated in Catalan); and there is the all pervasive influence of FC Barcelona, whose president - elected by the fans - is also pro-independence.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant. Hopefully it is not like that in Scotland either. In Catalonia if you do not support independence you are not considered a Catalan by those who favour separation from Spain.
Catalonia has so many more pluses than Scotland, if you are doing that sort of comparison.
Barcelona is the commercial hub of the western Med and is rapidly becoming more economically successful. It does make unfavourable comparisons with the problems of much of the rest of Spain and that is why Spain cannot afford to lose its income.
Catalonia has at least 8m people and some 11m speak Catalan (incl Balearics, Valencia, Andorra, etc) . Catalan (being one of the Romance languages) is a quite easy language to pick up if you have a reasonable knowledge of French and some Spanish. When I first went there I found that I could read most public notices quite well.
The attempted repression by Franco is still within living memory and that is one of the reasons why independence is popular and there is a somewhat resentful feeling that Catalonia is propping up economically much of the rest of Spain.
@DavidL - 40 million people not having access to anything other than emergency healthcare in the world's richest country strikes me as being a very high priority.
Clinton did not inherit what Obama did. We take it for granted now that catastrophe was always going to be avoided in 08/09/10, but it only turned out how it did because leaders such as Obama (and Brown) made certain calls in real time while under immense pressure. Thank God they did. I suspect with greater distance from those events historians will begin to recognise that.
As for Clinton, he took over when the US was unquestionably the world's pre-eminent economic, financial and cultural power; he did not assume office with the entire world peering over the precipice. And when his party won most votes in the Congressional elections, it won most seats!
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
Hadn't seen your earlier requests, sorry. I'm leaning against (though I think the party leadership is leaning the other way and will say so this week). Basically the overcrowding issue doesn't seem to me sufficiently salient to be worth prioritising £40 billion. I've often had to stand on part of the London-Nottingham route. It's a nuisance, but not in the same league as Britain's other issues. The messianic zeal of supporters (hello, Josiah) is also off-putting, though I'm trying not to let that influence me beyond the odd peevish comment on pb!
Duly nudged. Thank you Nick .... I'll keep your space on the wall vacant .... for now.
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
Hadn't seen your earlier requests, sorry. I'm leaning against (though I think the party leadership is leaning the other way and will say so this week). Basically the overcrowding issue doesn't seem to me sufficiently salient to be worth prioritising £40 billion. I've often had to stand on part of the London-Nottingham route. It's a nuisance, but not in the same league as Britain's other issues. The messianic zeal of supporters (hello, Josiah) is also off-putting, though I'm trying not to let that influence me beyond the odd peevish comment on pb!
Yawn. More insults.
It's not a messianic zeal, it's a fairly strong belief it's the right thing to do from having looked at the evidence. Mind you, that's not necessarily a trait I'd expect from a Labour ex-MP.
I really thought you were better than this, Nick. All I did was quote words off your own website, and mention how stupid they were.
I would also suggest you note the (in your words) "messianic zeal" and stupidity of some of the anti-HS2 argument as well.
Anyways, I'm off to an inquest. My first time going to one; I only hope we get some of the answers we want...
"Enjoyable Anthony Wells put-down of duff polling questions (rather in the style of Edmund in Tokyo):"
Oddly enough the worst polling question I ever saw was from an early Yougov. They asked 'which of Sandra Howard or Cherie Blair would be most likely to make you vote for their husband?'
(Naturally it was for The Mail and the overwhelming response was it wouldn't make a difference.)
Yesterday the Spanish Parliament agreed a motion stating that no one part of the Spanish state could decide its future shape because this is a matter for the whole population of Spain to decide. In effect, that kills off all paths to Catalonia becoming an independent country - at least in a legal sense - for the foreseeable future. The Catalans could declare independence, but it would not be recognised internationally.
That takes care of that then and we'll hear no more about it. Problem solved.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant.
Clearly the obvious solution is for the spanish parliament to agree to another motion telling them to stop being so ungrateful and to be happy that the spanish parliament just solved all their problems with the previous motion. What could possibly go wrong?
@Financier - No doubt Catalonia could be a successful independent country and no doubt it was repressed during the days of Franco and no doubt it puts more into Spain's finances than it gets out. But that does not make the nationalism pursued by its governing elite any more attractive. I lived there for five years and love the place. I was always very pro-Catalan and always understood and celebrated its distinct culture. But back then Catalonia was much more engaged with the rest of Spain. Now it has turned its back. That is not healthy. But as I said, with PP in power in Madrid, both sides are to blame.
Yesterday the Spanish Parliament agreed a motion stating that no one part of the Spanish state could decide its future shape because this is a matter for the whole population of Spain to decide. In effect, that kills off all paths to Catalonia becoming an independent country - at least in a legal sense - for the foreseeable future. The Catalans could declare independence, but it would not be recognised internationally.
That takes care of that then and we'll hear no more about it. Problem solved.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant.
Clearly the obvious solution is for the spanish parliament to agree to another motion telling them to stop being so ungrateful and to be happy that the spanish parliament just solved all their problems with the previous motion. What could possibly go wrong?
The obvious solution is devo-max. That's what'll happen in the end. But there'll be plenty of unpleasantness on the way.
Yesterday the Spanish Parliament agreed a motion stating that no one part of the Spanish state could decide its future shape because this is a matter for the whole population of Spain to decide. In effect, that kills off all paths to Catalonia becoming an independent country - at least in a legal sense - for the foreseeable future. The Catalans could declare independence, but it would not be recognised internationally.
That takes care of that then and we'll hear no more about it. Problem solved.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant.
Clearly the obvious solution is for the spanish parliament to agree to another motion telling them to stop being so ungrateful and to be happy that the spanish parliament just solved all their problems with the previous motion. What could possibly go wrong?
The obvious solution is devo-max. That's what'll happen in the end. But there'll be plenty of unpleasantness on the way.
Devolution is a process not a solution. I wouldn't worry about it as large numbers in SLAB still fail to understand that, never mind the comically out of touch tory twit Financiers.
May I say that I'm surprised that "Peter the Punter" didn't pass this article through the desk of PB's resident US presidential election guru - Moi !!
Blushes modestly ....
Essentially for 2016 it's Hilary's for the asking but does she want it ?
One other issue of note is demographic trends. A number of swing states are trending blue - Virginia being the most notable in the short term as the DC suburbs sprawl out into the state. To a lesser extent this is also filtering into North Carolina.
The Hispanic surge is also having a measurable effect. New Mexico, a state won by Bush Jnr is now off the table for the GOP and Nevada is likewise trending the same. This factor is now eating into GOP numbers in Colorado and Arizona. Crucially the Florida Cuban/Hispanic effect is weakening and long term Texas would not be off the table for the Democrats.
The GOP need an effective strategy for reversing pro Democrat Hispanic trends that presently are running past 2/1.
My apologies, Young Jack.
I did try, but Matron blocked it. Didn't want you getting too excited.
"I think the "does she really want it?" comments don't pass the common sense test for anyone who has been anywhere near politics. Being US President is clearly difficult but fascinating, and I expect many of us would say yes to it in a millisecond if we were offered the job. Hillary has been in orbit around it forever. Of course she'll want to do it."
The common sense reasons Hilary may not want it :
1. Her health and that of Bill 2. Age. 3. She's already been at the top - SoS, Senator and First Lady.
.........................................
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
Oh come off it, Jack.
Ambition never dies. Look how old you are, and still craving to be POTY.
Comments
* On current trends more like four guys in Maine and a golden retriever called Alan, but they'll have the sign-ups figured out by 2016...
I will know more in a couple of days, hopefully.
As usual, your information is utterly inaccurate - the golden retriever is called Rex :-)
YouGov, Lab on +6. Both Cameron & Miliband see some easing in their qualities - driven by softening among VI eg Cameron "sticks to what he believes in OA" 22 (-3), VI: 50 (-4), Miliband, "in touch with concerns of ordinary people OA: 25 (-2), VI: 58 (-3), but all MOE stuff basically....
What does this have to do with the thread? Well, I think by 2016 some of these chickens will have come home to roost. I think that an even vaguely sane GOP candidate will be in a strong position against any Democrat, even Hilary. I take the point that "vaguely sane" is quite a high bar in the GOP and there is a risk that their candidate will not meet it. I thought Ryan had many sensible things to say about public finance the last time but no one wanted to hear it. Unless he is damaged by the tea party loons in Congress with the shutdown etc I think he willl get a much better audience next time around and the demand for a change of course and some sort of attempt to address the problems that Obama has ignored will be powerful.
Yesterday's vote came after the latest opinion poll in Catalonia found that in a straight Yes/No vote 52% would vote for independence, 41% against, the rest DK, won't say. Again, not like Scotland.
And one other way in which the two countries vary is in media ownership/control. The most widely read newspapers are published locally and tend to be sympathetic to, if not supportive of, separatism; the local TV broadcaster is openly pro-independence; as a language Catalan is utterly dominant these days, especially among the young (Spanish is taught as a foreign language, kids have to be educated in Catalan); and there is the all pervasive influence of FC Barcelona, whose president - elected by the fans - is also pro-independence.
Overall, the atmosphere seems to be very tense and unpleasantly intolerant. Hopefully it is not like that in Scotland either. In Catalonia if you do not support independence you are not considered a Catalan by those who favour separation from Spain.
Blushes modestly ....
Essentially for 2016 it's Hilary's for the asking but does she want it ?
One other issue of note is demographic trends. A number of swing states are trending blue - Virginia being the most notable in the short term as the DC suburbs sprawl out into the state. To a lesser extent this is also filtering into North Carolina.
The Hispanic surge is also having a measurable effect. New Mexico, a state won by Bush Jnr is now off the table for the GOP and Nevada is likewise trending the same. This factor is now eating into GOP numbers in Colorado and Arizona. Crucially the Florida Cuban/Hispanic effect is weakening and long term Texas would not be off the table for the Democrats.
The GOP need an effective strategy for reversing pro Democrat Hispanic trends that presently are running past 2/1.
Looking to 2016, unless the Republicans solve their Tea Party problem, it's hard to see how they can be successful, unless they come up with a way of fixing the race by limiting voting rights. How do you get to be the Republican candidate without winning over the Tea Party? And if by some miracle you get to the White House, how do you then govern without being totally dependent on Democrats and a few sane Republicans, and if you have to do that, how do you get the 2020 nomination, let alone secure re-election?
So the country with the opportunity to divorce amicably (on current polling) may decide not to, while the one that wants to will be driven to extremes......which ever way the independence referendum goes, I suspect England & Scotland will remain on pretty good terms - I can't see the same happening for Spain & Catalonia.....
YouGov link if anyone wants to check it out is
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/1sqhc03nrf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-291013.pdf
I agree with Carlotta there's nothing special there. You can make a case that Clegg and the LibDems are marginally off the bottom (interestingly, without Labour dropping), perhaps helped by some friendly press coverage. I counted no fewer than five pro-Clegg articles in the Standard a couple of days ago, which had to be some sort of editorial decision - nothing editorial, just a series of "Clegg says this" "Clegg does that" pieces, all positive. The Standard, which has to bear its largely pro-Labour audience in mind, is a bit less pro-Government than it has been, and I wonder if they're preparing the ground for refraining from endorsing either major party and giving the LibDems a nod without an explicit endorsement.
Some of the old and bold PB LibDems appear to be an endangered species making the odd appearance here and on the BBC "Autumnwatch" show.
What news of the "Yellow Throated Tabman" and the more recent fledgling "Greater Breasted Mrs B" ?
I also think it is worth considering what this "obstructionism" means. Essentially Obama has followed a Ballsian type approach by which domestic demand is kept up by excessive government spending. Republicans have opposed that. Whether they were right to do so or not is hard to tell. Those who claim the answer is obvious are broadly the same as those that claimed economic growth was impossible in the UK without further stimulus and that unemployment would soar rather than fall.
The US health system is a disgrace and clearly something needed to be done. Whether that something was Obamacare and whether that was the priority at a time when the competitiveness of the economy was such a major issue is harder to say. Obama has had the benefit of the shale revolution but has still not got the US on a sustainable path. His economic record is very ordinary, even taking account of the mess he inherited. Look at what Bill Clinton achieved by comparison.
"I think the "does she really want it?" comments don't pass the common sense test for anyone who has been anywhere near politics. Being US President is clearly difficult but fascinating, and I expect many of us would say yes to it in a millisecond if we were offered the job. Hillary has been in orbit around it forever. Of course she'll want to do it."
The common sense reasons Hilary may not want it :
1. Her health and that of Bill
2. Age.
3. She's already been at the top - SoS, Senator and First Lady.
.........................................
BTW Nick .... and third request now - What is your current position on HS2 ?
Very interesting to read the posts about Spain and Catalonia.
F1: Lauda reckons the team's trying to persuade Brawn to stay.
http://www.espn.co.uk/mercedes/motorsport/story/132549.html
I suspect they're making noise but not sense. Brawn wants clear team leader status. If he had that, there'd be no story. If he doesn't, he's going.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8286
In the 19th century Queen Victoria considered purchasing the estate but eventually opted for Balmoral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho6tdkZ1IJg&feature=youtu.be
Catalonia has so many more pluses than Scotland, if you are doing that sort of comparison.
Barcelona is the commercial hub of the western Med and is rapidly becoming more economically successful. It does make unfavourable comparisons with the problems of much of the rest of Spain and that is why Spain cannot afford to lose its income.
Catalonia has at least 8m people and some 11m speak Catalan (incl Balearics, Valencia, Andorra, etc) . Catalan (being one of the Romance languages) is a quite easy language to pick up if you have a reasonable knowledge of French and some Spanish. When I first went there I found that I could read most public notices quite well.
The attempted repression by Franco is still within living memory and that is one of the reasons why independence is popular and there is a somewhat resentful feeling that Catalonia is propping up economically much of the rest of Spain.
Clinton did not inherit what Obama did. We take it for granted now that catastrophe was always going to be avoided in 08/09/10, but it only turned out how it did because leaders such as Obama (and Brown) made certain calls in real time while under immense pressure. Thank God they did. I suspect with greater distance from those events historians will begin to recognise that.
As for Clinton, he took over when the US was unquestionably the world's pre-eminent economic, financial and cultural power; he did not assume office with the entire world peering over the precipice. And when his party won most votes in the Congressional elections, it won most seats!
Titters ....
It's not a messianic zeal, it's a fairly strong belief it's the right thing to do from having looked at the evidence. Mind you, that's not necessarily a trait I'd expect from a Labour ex-MP.
I really thought you were better than this, Nick. All I did was quote words off your own website, and mention how stupid they were.
I would also suggest you note the (in your words) "messianic zeal" and stupidity of some of the anti-HS2 argument as well.
Anyways, I'm off to an inquest. My first time going to one; I only hope we get some of the answers we want...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4
"Enjoyable Anthony Wells put-down of duff polling questions (rather in the style of Edmund in Tokyo):"
Oddly enough the worst polling question I ever saw was from an early Yougov. They asked 'which of Sandra Howard or Cherie Blair would be most likely to make you vote for their husband?'
(Naturally it was for The Mail and the overwhelming response was it wouldn't make a difference.)
'Mystic Ed and his Crystal Balls'.....or this - Labour PPB going out tonight:
Effective I guess but a really nauseating soundtrack.
I did try, but Matron blocked it. Didn't want you getting too excited.
How are the piles these days?
Ambition never dies. Look how old you are, and still craving to be POTY.