It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
How can he square "we must leave Oct 31" with "delay is unavoidable"?
Given your taste in wine I'm guessing you're more Cotswold than Canvey?
I only know a few Tories nowadays but they are sadly Borisinis. I served with lots on my old council and they were all Boris fans back then.
I think this was my point. Previous pro-Borisites (and I campaigned extensively for him for his London Mayor attempts) have become sick of him. Or the controversy around him. But mainly him.
We'll see. Personally I expect him to get at least 66%.
Against much higher quality fields, that he even feels the need to run at his age says an awful lot. Biden has the big advantage in this race as he is best known so he has a head start...
That is very true but when this happens there are only a small number who have a chance to catch up on Biden. The fact the media have pulled towards the lightweight's you mention demonstrate the paucity of quality.
It will only be Sanders/Warren and Harris who has the power of Clinton's machine behind her but has Clinton's exact same personal weakness, not likeable, suspect outside controlled media, no humour. So Biden only really has Harris to beat to get to the last 2, so really a shoe in to get there.
It is such certainty which makes political betting profitable.
There's another headline about proroguing parliament. Apparently Boris has refused to deny he would do it.
Can someone please point out that a Prime minister cannot prorogue parliament but merely request to the Queen that she do so? I'm afraid it is part of our constitutional problem that so much power is effectively invested in the PM because the Monarch never goes against their wishes. However conservatives are supposed to care for constitutional niceties. Boris as we know wants to be world king. Perhaps HMQ ought to look out?
I was against proroguing Parliament until Grieve came up with his latest wheeze to shutdown the government if he doesn't get his way. Now it seems like a good idea.
It's amazing that May thought the country was best served by having Grayling in the cabinet and Grieve outside it.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
How can he square "we must leave Oct 31" with "delay is unavoidable"?
Is this your first encounter with the lying pile of shit?
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
Completely OT. Anyone in Edinburgh to day? There's a film called 'Girl from Mogadishu' on at the Edinburgh film festival and I'm not able to get there but I would love a decent critique on it. (It's about FGM)
TUD?
Sorry Roger, I'm in the baking hot Costa del North Uist, no cinemas for miles. If I hear anything I'll pass it on.
There's another headline about proroguing parliament. Apparently Boris has refused to deny he would do it.
Can someone please point out that a Prime minister cannot prorogue parliament but merely request to the Queen that she do so? I'm afraid it is part of our constitutional problem that so much power is effectively invested in the PM because the Monarch never goes against their wishes. However conservatives are supposed to care for constitutional niceties. Boris as we know wants to be world king. Perhaps HMQ ought to look out?
I was against proroguing Parliament until Grieve came up with his latest wheeze to shutdown the government if he doesn't get his way. Now it seems like a good idea.
It's amazing that May thought the country was best served by having Grayling in the cabinet and Grieve outside it.
The country will be best served by having both Grayling and Grieve outside Parliament.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
On the other hand it only requires 1 more by-election and Boris's majority moves to 0 from 2. And any delay will result in Nigel at full throttle throughout the election.
If there's an election before October then perhaps a Tory/BXP "coupon" election may be the best idea.
Farage should be able to have a clear run at Beaconsfield . . .
Mr. kinabalu, I think it'd take some doing to lose to Trump next time.
Not only did he narrowly win a number of states, now he has a record to defend. Plus, we aren't at the height of an anti-Establishment wave as we were last time. And the Democrat nominee is unlikely to make Clinton's mistake of wasting resources on safe states and neglecting battlegrounds.
Yes, that's my take.The stars aligned for Trump last time in a quite freakish way.
I would be just a bit more relaxed, however, if the US economy would play ball and take a dive.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
If the US economy is doing okay in November 2020, then I don't see how Trump fails to get re-elected.
Completely OT. Anyone in Edinburgh to day? There's a film called 'Girl from Mogadishu' on at the Edinburgh film festival and I'm not able to get there but I would love a decent critique on it. (It's about FGM)
TUD?
Sorry Roger, I'm in the baking hot Costa del North Uist, no cinemas for miles. If I hear anything I'll pass it on.
Pity but thanks anyway.PS Enjoy Uist. A wonderful place!
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
How can he square "we must leave Oct 31" with "delay is unavoidable"?
Because he wants to get into power hence "we must leave Oct 31" and then he wants to remain there so "delay is unavoidable"
While I don't want him as PM he is just about the only person who can pull off the lies required to get us into a sane result for Brexiters (where sane is left without No Deal)...
That sadly does mean that Nigel isn't going anywhere which is a problem for Boris....
Against much higher quality fields, that he even feels the need to run at his age says an awful lot. Biden has the big advantage in this race as he is best known so he has a head start...
That is very true but when this happens there are only a small number who have a chance to catch up on Biden. The fact the media have pulled towards the lightweight's you mention demonstrate the paucity of quality.
It will only be Sanders/Warren and Harris who has the power of Clinton's machine behind her but has Clinton's exact same personal weakness, not likeable, suspect outside controlled media, no humour. So Biden only really has Harris to beat to get to the last 2, so really a shoe in to get there.
It is such certainty which makes political betting profitable.
(qv ‘Pocahontas is finished’....)
Pocahontas Vs Trump would be close, I think Trump demolishes Harris though
Given that she doesn't know what the EHRC does or why it is investigating Labour, she should really keep her ill-informed mouth shut.
She is used by Corbyn as someone to have sat next to him during PMQs. That is not because of her skills, experience, intellect or political intelligence.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
So, am I calling it against Boris? Only a madman would do that, but there is definitely that feeling out there. I am red on him as people may be aware but that is an emotional vote. Wonder how many others with a vote on it, that said, feel the same as me. We shall see.
Surely in terms of "calling it", the only ones that matter are the Tory members? (I'm assuming not all your friends are Tory members, both from common sense and because you mention they include some "normal people").
haha no this is amongst Tory members. The conversation is actually quite funny, not quite AA type enquiry but at some point, someone, sotto voce, will ask "do you have a vote?".
So exactly yes, I am talking about Tory members.
Edit: I do though have friends who are not Tory members also. I should have used an asterisk after "normal"
I haven't canvassed all the members I know who are members, but anecdotally from a very small sample I can say the majority think like me, that he is highly unsuitable and will damage the party and the country.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
I could easily see Boris doing that. Risking everything in a GE will require the sort of fortitude he has never thus far demonstrated. Even a big polling lead won't soothe his fears as Corbo is a campaigning machine and Boris knows it.
They delay could be couched as unavoidable and necessary in order to achieve Proper British Brexit and everything is May's fault anyway.
How can he square "we must leave Oct 31" with "delay is unavoidable"?
He has promised so many contradictory things, something will have to give.
He has supreme faith in his own ability to bullshit his way out of a corner. Or to say whachyagonnadoaboudit to people when he lets them down
It's why he is able to promise the same job to multiple people. The promise delivers what he wants from the situation in front of him and he doesn't think or worry about later. That he doesn't think his actions have consequences is obvious from his private life
Completely OT. Anyone in Edinburgh to day? There's a film called 'Girl from Mogadishu' on at the Edinburgh film festival and I'm not able to get there but I would love a decent critique on it. (It's about FGM)
TUD?
Sorry Roger, I'm in the baking hot Costa del North Uist, no cinemas for miles. If I hear anything I'll pass it on.
And I’m swimming in a refreshing Loch Linnhe with a collie and a sausage dog. No cinemas, theatres, shops or politicians for miles and miles. Bloody heaven.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
So, am I calling it against Boris? Only a madman would do that, but there is definitely that feeling out there. I am red on him as people may be aware but that is an emotional vote. Wonder how many others with a vote on it, that said, feel the same as me. We shall see.
Surely in terms of "calling it", the only ones that matter are the Tory members? (I'm assuming not all your friends are Tory members, both from common sense and because you mention they include some "normal people").
haha no this is amongst Tory members. The conversation is actually quite funny, not quite AA type enquiry but at some point, someone, sotto voce, will ask "do you have a vote?".
So exactly yes, I am talking about Tory members.
Edit: I do though have friends who are not Tory members also. I should have used an asterisk after "normal"
I haven't canvassed all the members I know who are members, but anecdotally from a very small sample I can say the majority think like me, that he is highly unsuitable and will damage the party and the country.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
I don't think it's biased but if they are sane they clearly are not representative of the remaining members..
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
If the US economy is doing okay in November 2020, then I don't see how Trump fails to get re-elected.
Trump plays on the edge, so there is the chance he might step over the line, especially on Twitter but it is an outside chance now. Trump is a much better performer than he was in 2016. I think the Kavanagh circus was the turning point, he handled that very cleverly. Old Trump would have jumped all over the accuser, politically wisely he avoided that trap.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
I agree with most of this analysis. An incumbent with a good economy cannot be written off. I also agree that the campaign will be nasty (it could not be otherwise given it will feature Donald Trump) and that if the economy obliges and dives he will engineer some 'drama' either at home or abroad. Or at least try his level best to. And let's not forget that the guy is hugely energizing and entertaining. When he goes it will be like calling for the cab home.
Nevertheless, I think America is ready to do that now. My overwhelming feeling is that he is a one term president. I think the American people will decide that 4 years of this is enough.
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
Anyone who refers to remainers as "sane" has a strong bias.
The only sane way to negotiate is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. Anything else isn't negotiating it is grovelling.
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
My other worry is that Trump provokes a war with Iran.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
If the Brexit Party does a deal with the Tories then they can forget seats in NE England and the urban bits of Yorkshire.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
So, am I calling it against Boris? Only a madman would do that, but there is definitely that feeling out there. I am red on him as people may be aware but that is an emotional vote. Wonder how many others with a vote on it, that said, feel the same as me. We shall see.
Surely in terms of "calling it", the only ones that matter are the Tory members? (I'm assuming not all your friends are Tory members, both from common sense and because you mention they include some "normal people").
haha no this is amongst Tory members. The conversation is actually quite funny, not quite AA type enquiry but at some point, someone, sotto voce, will ask "do you have a vote?".
So exactly yes, I am talking about Tory members.
Edit: I do though have friends who are not Tory members also. I should have used an asterisk after "normal"
I haven't canvassed all the members I know who are members, but anecdotally from a very small sample I can say the majority think like me, that he is highly unsuitable and will damage the party and the country.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
I don't think it's biased but if they are sane they clearly are not representative of the remaining members..
Would be quite an upset. I suggest your friend gets on Hunt at 8.4 if he thinks that way.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
I don't think Labour would lose that many votes, but combined with the anti-Labour Leave vote they could be sufficient to lose seats in strongly Leave areas.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
I agree with most of this analysis. An incumbent with a good economy cannot be written off. I also agree that the campaign will be nasty (it could not be otherwise given it will feature Donald Trump) and that if the economy obliges and dives he will engineer some 'drama' either at home or abroad. Or at least try his level best to. And let's not forget that the guy is hugely energizing and entertaining. When he goes it will be like calling for the cab home.
Nevertheless, I think America is ready to do that now. My overwhelming feeling is that he is a one term president. I think the American people will decide that 4 years of this is enough.
Hope so.
Looks like the economy will be going badly by mid 2020. Red flashing warning signs all over the place, especially bond yields.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
If the Brexit Party does a deal with the Tories then they can forget seats in NE England and the urban bits of Yorkshire.
And the Tories can say goodbye to a lot of seats in the south
Just curious, as the nun said to the hockey team, but what's your take on Remain type MPs who voted against the deal?
The biggest reason we're at an impasse is that a majority of MPs appears to be against every single option.
Mr. kinabalu, depends a lot on how other Remain parties, especially the Lib Dems fare and if there's going to be official candidates for a Remain/Second Referendum alliance.
Remain MPs who voted against the deal? I find it worrying, but very understandable. If the Leave side continually trumpet that they won't accept a win unless it's their definition of Brexit, that the vote had to mean precisely what they want it to mean, and that they'll do their damndest to make sure it doesn't pass... it's totally natural to think "Well, screw you if you won't take 'yes' for an answer" and vote against it as well.
Thinking of the old Overton Window - the ERG-er type want to shift the discourse to the point where only very very hard Brexit options are acceptable (we can see how they're now trying to define the WA as "soft Brexit" and "Brexit in Name Only"), so failing to resist them - well, I don't know if I'd have voted against the WA, but I can certainly empathise with those who did.
And that Parliament is badly split and unable to plump for one option - in a way, that's only fair, as they're supposed to be representative of the country, which is badly split and unable to plump for one option...
I think both sides are playing chicken, convinced the other cannot follow through and they can't really lose, and one side at least is horrifically mistaken.
I've stocked up on bread flour for the bread maker, frozen vegetables and fruits, and other essentials, just to be on the safe side - after all, we're going to eat them anyway; we'll just have a bit more in reserve at any given time.
Mr. kinabalu, I think it'd take some doing to lose to Trump next time.
Not only did he narrowly win a number of states, now he has a record to defend. Plus, we aren't at the height of an anti-Establishment wave as we were last time. And the Democrat nominee is unlikely to make Clinton's mistake of wasting resources on safe states and neglecting battlegrounds.
Yes, that's my take.The stars aligned for Trump last time in a quite freakish way.
I would be just a bit more relaxed, however, if the US economy would play ball and take a dive.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
This popular vote is a red herring. The biggest state Trump didn't even campaign and Clinton stacked up votes, totally irrelevant to the real battlegrounds of which Trump won nearly all. Trump was a political unknown last time, now he has a track record and he will get his base out for sure.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
Given your taste in wine I'm guessing you're more Cotswold than Canvey?
I only know a few Tories nowadays but they are sadly Borisinis. I served with lots on my old council and they were all Boris fans back then.
I think this was my point. Previous pro-Borisites (and I campaigned extensively for him for his London Mayor attempts) have become sick of him. Or the controversy around him. But mainly him.
yep - super small sample but surprisingly uniform. And surely Boris supporters wouldn't be shy. Plus in any case it's that look in their eye when they talk of Boris.
Still, the BBC manages to wheel on the various chairmen of XYZ-shire Conservative Associations who seem as frothing and Boris-supporting as anyone. Just that 99% of the Cons members I have met despise or at least have given up on him.
This is the odd thing - my experience here in deepest true-blue Sussex is quite similar to yours. As I think I've mentioned before, I've been surprised by how many Tory members have gone out of their way to criticise Boris, even in meetings which were discussing local matters completely unrelated to national politics or the leadership.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
Seems bonkers to me. I am green on her a little bit and will not be topping up at those odds.
Hah ye, I think I could almost construct my book De Novo at the moment. Anyway hopefully there are attack lines for the candidates on Harris' actions as a prosecutor in the next debate.
I recently had lunch with a friend who is an active member of the Tory party. Last week he had been at a social gathering of 15-20 Tory members, none of whom would vote for Boris. He's convinced Boris will not be elected. A small sample, probably a biased sample of sane Tory members. Nevertheless ...
Anyone who refers to remainers as "sane" has a strong bias.
The only sane way to negotiate is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. Anything else isn't negotiating it is grovelling.
The EU would like a deal, they would lose out if there is a No Deal Brexit. However, we would lose out more. Also they can't give us as good a deal as staying, because then what would be the point of being a member.
From the Spectator archives, 27 April 1996, Anne Symonds (nee Harrisson) replies..
"Sir: I think I am right in identifying myself as the person described, mistakenly, by Alan Watkins (Books, 13 April ) as `Asquith's illegitimate daughter'. May I correct him on a number of points? Hilda Harrisson, my mother, was not a journalist, she was a distinguished artist; she was not a friend of Asquith's daughter, Violet, she was introduced to Mr Asquith by Lucy Graham Smith, Margot Asquith's half-sister. My father, Major Roland Harrisson DSO, was still alive and fighting in the trenches in France when I was born. My mother was not the sort of person to be having an affair — even with the Prime Minister — in such a situation. Mr Asquith's letters to her at the time are friendly but in no way display the intimacy which a closer relationship would suggest.
It was Raymond Asquith's death, followed later by my father's, that contributed strongly to the mutual comfort and love which subsequently developed.
May I, in spite of the need to rap Alan over the knuckles, express my continuing admiration and affection for him, and also my gratitude for the kind adjectives he applies to me?
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
If the Brexit Party does a deal with the Tories then they can forget seats in NE England and the urban bits of Yorkshire.
Doesn't need to be a deal just a tactical withdrawal from certain seats where the Tories have no prayer but the BP certainly would. Cooper's seat would be top of the list. North East England is ripe for following Scotland as far as Labour is concerned and Corbyn is well aware of this.
The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
The only way he can "see off" Nigel Fucking Farage is crash out in October with no deal.
Completely OT. Anyone in Edinburgh to day? There's a film called 'Girl from Mogadishu' on at the Edinburgh film festival and I'm not able to get there but I would love a decent critique on it. (It's about FGM)
TUD?
Sorry Roger, I'm in the baking hot Costa del North Uist, no cinemas for miles. If I hear anything I'll pass it on.
And I’m swimming in a refreshing Loch Linnhe with a collie and a sausage dog. No cinemas, theatres, shops or politicians for miles and miles. Bloody heaven.
Sorry Roger!
....and that's more interesting than a film about FGM? Time for you Edinburghers to man up!
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
Mr. kinabalu, I think it'd take some doing to lose to Trump next time.
Not only did he narrowly win a number of states, now he has a record to defend. Plus, we aren't at the height of an anti-Establishment wave as we were last time. And the Democrat nominee is unlikely to make Clinton's mistake of wasting resources on safe states and neglecting battlegrounds.
Yes, that's my take.The stars aligned for Trump last time in a quite freakish way.
I would be just a bit more relaxed, however, if the US economy would play ball and take a dive.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
This popular vote is a red herring. The biggest state Trump didn't even campaign and Clinton stacked up votes, totally irrelevant to the real battlegrounds of which Trump won nearly all. Trump was a political unknown last time, now he has a track record and he will get his base out for sure.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
You think Trump is going to pivot to the centre? Are toy a HYUFD alt account?
The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
The only way he can "see off" Nigel Fucking Farage is crash out in October with no deal.
The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
The only way he can "see off" Nigel Fucking Farage is crash out in October with no deal.
Then it doesn't matter who is party leader...
Oh, they are deluded to be sure. Even, perhaps especially, if we crash out in chaos, that won't deal with the threat from the Brexit Party. The idea that Farage is going to meekly walk away and say to the Tories 'jolly well done chaps, you really did this Brexit thing right in the end' is for the birds.
Seems bonkers to me. I am green on her a little bit and will not be topping up at those odds.
Hah ye, I think I could almost construct my book De Novo at the moment. Anyway hopefully there are attack lines for the candidates on Harris' actions as a prosecutor in the next debate.
There was some focus group polling from a little bit back that suggested attacking Harris' prosecutor decisions didn't get much play.
The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
The only way he can "see off" Nigel Fucking Farage is crash out in October with no deal.
Then it doesn't matter who is party leader...
Oh, they are deluded to be sure. The idea that Farage is going to meekly walk away and say to the Tories 'jolly well done chaps, you really did this Brexit thing right in the end' is for the birds.
He walked away last time. Once we've left we've shot his fox and FPTP does the rest.
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
If the US economy is doing okay in November 2020, then I don't see how Trump fails to get re-elected.
Trump's problem is his approval ratings are stuck in negative territory. If you look at fivethirtyeight he can't seem to get above -10, and there's been very little movement since he became president. Other presidents' first term approval ratings go up and down a fair bit. It seems like there aren't many waverers, most people have made up their minds, and the majority who are negative on Trump are showing no sign of becoming pro-Trump because the economy is doing ok.
Of course he managed to win last time despite negative approval ratings, not sure how much that was specific to Clinton already being strongly disliked, but I'm guessing another candidate might have beaten him?
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
The May/Merkel deal muddies the waters as regards a second referendum, straight leave/remain I don't think too many politicians on the ground would expect a different result.
Mr. kinabalu, I think it'd take some doing to lose to Trump next time.
Not only did he narrowly win a number of states, now he has a record to defend. Plus, we aren't at the height of an anti-Establishment wave as we were last time. And the Democrat nominee is unlikely to make Clinton's mistake of wasting resources on safe states and neglecting battlegrounds.
Yes, that's my take.The stars aligned for Trump last time in a quite freakish way.
I would be just a bit more relaxed, however, if the US economy would play ball and take a dive.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
This popular vote is a red herring. The biggest state Trump didn't even campaign and Clinton stacked up votes, totally irrelevant to the real battlegrounds of which Trump won nearly all. Trump was a political unknown last time, now he has a track record and he will get his base out for sure.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
Sure the popular vote is a red herring, in the same way as national vote shares in the UK are a red herring: the only thing that counts is the vote in the 650 constituencies
What's fascinating about Trump's reelection bid is that it's a contest between different theories of how elections are won, with contradictory slam-dunks depending which you believe.
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
Why are these so-called activists so bothered now? Boris has promised them we leave on 31st Oct 'do or die'. So no point deselecting MPs.
Presumably they want to ensure that sensible Tory MPs have nothing to lose if they work with Labour and the LibDems to prevent crash-out. Or something like that.
The real question for Trump's re-election is how man #nevettrumps are still actually not going to vote for Trump. Lots of so called never trumpets have been absolutely delighted with how the Supreme Court and Federal Court packing has gone and I suspect are going to happily vote trump at the second time of asking.
This will give him a crucial boost in all those states he won by razor thin margins.
Stormzy? Not sure he givesa damn about Brexit and I'm not sure a rapper aimed at teenage girls has any influence. The 2nd referendum ship long since sailed IMO hence the huge odds. It's mad that people keep banging the same tired drum.
Stormzy has considerable reach. It's not just teenage girls.
On Ref2, yes the 2019 ship has indeed sailed. No way is it happening this year. In fact laying that market - now closed out - has been my best politics bet of the last few months.
But the route to Ref2 in 2020 or later is clear enough -
A 'Brexit' general election which Labour win with Ref2 in their manifesto.
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
If the US economy is doing okay in November 2020, then I don't see how Trump fails to get re-elected.
Trump's problem is his approval ratings are stuck in negative territory. If you look at fivethirtyeight he can't seem to get above -10, and there's been very little movement since he became president. Other presidents' first term approval ratings go up and down a fair bit. It seems like there aren't many waverers, most people have made up their minds, and the majority who are negative on Trump are showing no sign of becoming pro-Trump because the economy is doing ok.
Of course he managed to win last time despite negative approval ratings, not sure how much that was specific to Clinton already being strongly disliked, but I'm guessing another candidate might have beaten him?
No the polls were wrong last time and are likely to be the same today. Where there hasn't been much movement is most influential and wealthy operators in USA media and business don't want Trump and will do all they can to beat him, shaping polls is one of the methods used. So far though where Trump campaigns he does very well, my money goes behind real results.
Why are these so-called activists so bothered now? Boris has promised them we leave on 31st Oct 'do or die'. So no point deselecting MPs.
Presumably they want to ensure that sensible Tory MPs have nothing to lose if they work with Labour and the LibDems to prevent crash-out. Or something like that.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
It's not quite Remain with Jeremy - it's another (definitive) referendum with Labour / Jeremy. To ensure he doesn't upset Northern MP's too much...
Yes, there'll be some careful language. But so long as the commitment to a Referendum with Remain as an option is clear and unambiguous I think this will be sufficient to harness enough of the Remainer vote to make the election winnable for Labour.
That's if we get the election, of course, which I doubt. I think Johnson is likely to bottle it. I see him taking an extension and trying to get the WA through in 2020.
Corbyn has a big problem go second reffie and he risks losing the whole block of seats in the North East and most of Yorkshire, add that to Scotland and Labour just can't win. These WWC seats won't ever vote Conservative but they will vote BP. If Johnson works with Farage he can win an election with a Brexit platform.
No - go second ref and he loses a few votes there but gains a fair number of remain votes in those seats.
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
If the Brexit Party does a deal with the Tories then they can forget seats in NE England and the urban bits of Yorkshire.
Indeed. This is the fundamental flaw at the centre of this 'strategy' – surprised the PB Trumpton-Leavers haven't yet spotted it!
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
No the polls were wrong last time and are likely to be the same today. Where there hasn't been much movement is most influential and wealthy operators in USA media and business don't want Trump and will do all they can to beat him, shaping polls is one of the methods used. So far though where Trump campaigns he does very well, my money goes behind real results.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
I agree with one thing there it won't be close but not the result you would want. Clinton 2 is going to be less of a success than the original, who lost even without a successful economy behind the opponent.
TBF, 'super Clinton' not 'Clinton 2' is how I'm putting it.
But, OK, in return I will agree with you on one thing. The economy. That is a worry. It's pretty much my only worry, but it's a big one. A downturn would be very handy.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
If the US economy is doing okay in November 2020, then I don't see how Trump fails to get re-elected.
Trump's problem is his approval ratings are stuck in negative territory. If you look at fivethirtyeight he can't seem to get above -10, and there's been very little movement since he became president. Other presidents' first term approval ratings go up and down a fair bit. It seems like there aren't many waverers, most people have made up their minds, and the majority who are negative on Trump are showing no sign of becoming pro-Trump because the economy is doing ok.
Of course he managed to win last time despite negative approval ratings, not sure how much that was specific to Clinton already being strongly disliked, but I'm guessing another candidate might have beaten him?
No the polls were wrong last time and are likely to be the same today. Where there hasn't been much movement is most influential and wealthy operators in USA media and business don't want Trump and will do all they can to beat him, shaping polls is one of the methods used. So far though where Trump campaigns he does very well, my money goes behind real results.
Could you explain which polls and how wrong?
AFAIR the polling average had Trump winning Florida and Ohio. It even had him winning Nevada which he failed to do.
The one place the polls failed was the Midwest Rustbelt. And even then the failure was overstating Clinton support. Trump barely got more votes than Romney.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
Is this why Sajid is such a red hot favourite for Chancellor?
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
No the polls were wrong last time and are likely to be the same today. Where there hasn't been much movement is most influential and wealthy operators in USA media and business don't want Trump and will do all they can to beat him, shaping polls is one of the methods used. So far though where Trump campaigns he does very well, my money goes behind real results.
In 2016? The polls were pretty good.
Nationally they were better than 2012, where the polls underestimated Obama's lead by slightly more than they overestimated Clinton's 2016 lead. But in states like Michigan they were out - I seem to remember they also got the Dem primary result in Michigan really really wrong, so seemed to miss some anti-Clinton (or anti-free-trade) voters in the Mid-West.
What's fascinating about Trump's reelection bid is that it's a contest between different theories of how elections are won, with contradictory slam-dunks depending which you believe.
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
There are very few Republicans outside the Bush loyal wing of politicians who do not like Trump. Add to that with the way the opponents have treated him they will get out and vote guaranteed. From there Trump doesn't need much swing vote in the key 10 or so states to win and with the economy as it is, hard to believe he won't do that. The last election was no fluke, clever strategy get your vote out and work like hell in the marginals to get over the line.
Nothing much has changed from last time, only Trump will probably win most of the swing states more handily with 4 years solid economy behind him. Only a handful will probably change hands, maybe only one or two is a very good bet.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
The difference is that Grieve has a brain, whereas most of the ERG share one or two cells between them, though Mark Francois gives the impression one brain cell would be an improvement.
OK, so in my travels around my associates, friends, acquaintances, I have yet to find any Boris supporters. Now of course mine is by definition a self-selecting group but I can assure you it comprises mustard keen Brexiters, normal people, provincial Tories, county poshos, you name it. All against Boris. Some more in sorrow than in anger, others in anger. The letterbox comment in particular has made people angry, including those close to Party HQ. Whatever their feelings on the burka, they believe Boris set back the Cons reach out to the "Muslim vote" by years.
Is this why Sajid is such a red hot favourite for Chancellor?
Times and Telegraph report Saj is Boris pick. I tipped it up here at 7-4 last night
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Leaving aside the fact that it was primarily the ERG, Boris etc who repeatedly broke three-line whips to vote with Labour to sabotage Conservative party policy and prevent Brexit on the 29th March, the key votes are likely to happen before a GE. Before voting for a GE or a VONC, MPs may well want to put in protection against crash-out.
Pretty sure Grieve et al broke the whip more than the ERG did. They broke the whip on all 3 MV's and broke the whip on the Brady Amendment, the compromise and only motion to actually pass the Commons this year on which the ERG et al voted for.
David Gauke?
Gauke has worked against the negotiations and threatened to quit very frequently but never actually done so. He shouldn't be deselected IMO but he should be demoted from the Cabinet.
Why are these so-called activists so bothered now? Boris has promised them we leave on 31st Oct 'do or die'. So no point deselecting MPs.
Presumably they want to ensure that sensible Tory MPs have nothing to lose if they work with Labour and the LibDems to prevent crash-out. Or something like that.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Good old purge the people you don't agree with eh? Pathetic. You are not a democrat, just an old fashioned extremist. It is people like you that not only got us into this intractable mess, but who will destroy everything that is good and honourable about our flawed system of parliamentary democracy. Nutters like you at one extreme and evil bastards from Momentum at the other. God save us.
What's fascinating about Trump's reelection bid is that it's a contest between different theories of how elections are won, with contradictory slam-dunks depending which you believe.
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
It's an interesting one. I'm not convinced the 'fundamentals' apply in the same way anymore. You can have a strong economy, and an awful lot of people struggling with healthcare and education costs (google the Baumol Effect). This isn't Trump's direct fault, but he quite blatantly doesn't give a damn about addressing it.
There's no reason for two and three not to apply equally. The successful candidate is one that can both enthuse the base and hold on to the middle ground. Simply by running against Trump, Democrats have a built in advantage in being able to pull off that trick. So long as they don't pick Sanders...
Next Wednesday the first sitting of the 2019-2024 EU Parliament term will take place.
Political groups formed
European People's Party: 182 MEPs. Chair: Manfred Weber (Germany)
Socialists and Democrats: 154 MEPs. Chair: Iratxe García (Spain)
Renew Europe (ex ALDE) 108 MEPs. Chair: Dacian Cioloș (Romania)
Greens/European Free Alliance: 75 MEPs. Co-chairs: Ska Keller (Germany) and Philippe Lamberts (Belgium)
Identity and Democracy: 73 MEPs. Chair: Marco Zanni (Italy)
European Conservatives and Democrats: 62 MEPs. Co-chairs: Ryszard Legutko (Poland) and Raffaelle Fitto (Italy)
European United Left-Nordic Green Left: 41 MEPs. Interim co-chairs: João Ferreira (Portugal), Marisa Matias (Portugal), Martin Schirdewan (Germany) and Nikolaj Villumsen (Denmark)
Not attached: 56 MEPs They are: 1 Germany's Die Partei, 2 Greek Communists, 2 Golden Dawn, 2 Junts per Catalunya, 2 from Croatia (ŽIVI ZID and Mislav Kolakušić), 1 Hungary's Jobbik, 14 Italy's 5 Stars, 2 Slovakia's ĽSNS, 29 Brexit Party, 1 DUP
A pleasure as always, Andrea. I shall look at the Wikipedia articles when time permits.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
Why are these so-called activists so bothered now? Boris has promised them we leave on 31st Oct 'do or die'. So no point deselecting MPs.
Presumably they want to ensure that sensible Tory MPs have nothing to lose if they work with Labour and the LibDems to prevent crash-out. Or something like that.
I think its more recognising that Grieve, Gyimyah [sp?] and others already are working against the party and with Labour and Lib Dems - and others like Gauke repeatedly threatening to - so if there's a new election then replacing these MPs with those who will follow the party line is a priority.
Or something like that.
Good old purge the people you don't agree with eh? Pathetic. You are not a democrat, just an old fashioned extremist. It is people like you that not only got us into this intractable mess, but who will destroy everything that is good and honourable about our flawed system of parliamentary democracy. Nutters like you at one extreme and evil bastards from Momentum at the other. God save us.
I'm not a fan of Leave.EU and I'm not endorsing what they're doing.
What's fascinating about Trump's reelection bid is that it's a contest between different theories of how elections are won, with contradictory slam-dunks depending which you believe.
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
There are very few Republicans outside the Bush loyal wing of politicians who do not like Trump. Add to that with the way the opponents have treated him they will get out and vote guaranteed. From there Trump doesn't need much swing vote in the key 10 or so states to win and with the economy as it is, hard to believe he won't do that. The last election was no fluke, clever strategy get your vote out and work like hell in the marginals to get over the line.
He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin. He barely moved the dial in the other Rustbelt states.
What did happen was that the Democrats vote dropped by up to 10 percentage points in those states.
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
You make the Dakota territory into two states when you expand the Union rather than just 1.
What's fascinating about Trump's reelection bid is that it's a contest between different theories of how elections are won, with contradictory slam-dunks depending which you believe.
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
There are very few Republicans outside the Bush loyal wing of politicians who do not like Trump. Add to that with the way the opponents have treated him they will get out and vote guaranteed. From there Trump doesn't need much swing vote in the key 10 or so states to win and with the economy as it is, hard to believe he won't do that. The last election was no fluke, clever strategy get your vote out and work like hell in the marginals to get over the line.
Nothing much has changed from last time, only Trump will probably win most of the swing states more handily with 4 years solid economy behind him. Only a handful will probably change hands, maybe only one or two is a very good bet.
Trump has very high approval ratings with Republicans partly because former Republicans dislike Trump so much that they no longer identify as Republicans. In any case only a quarter of American voters identify as Republican - it's probably not enough to win.
If you're confident it's a sure thing and willing to tie up the money you can back Trump to win at evens or better, but I'm not sure that represents value (I'm not sure laying at those odds is value either).
I would say it wasn't a worry if you were an American more a huge positive, pretty much every election I have known if most people are better off the incumbent leader wins, no matter what the personality. Looking at Harris I don't see too many advantages over Clinton other than looking better. More of the same really and a certain loser. Bombast and aggression isn't going to beat Trump in debate, Harris is as subtle as a bludgeon and like Clinton she does it without humour.
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Yes indeed. It's the economy stupid. Certainly it gives Trump a fighting chance if it holds up. But no more than that.
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
I'm not at all confident Trump will lose against whoever his opponent is. Even if he does, it's very unlikely the Democrats will gain control of the gerrymandered Senate (if they do, it will only be with "Democrats" like Joe Manchin, who will still block sane policies), so the future of the planet still looks pretty shit.
How do you gerrymander the Senate?
First you get a Tardis, then you go back and redraw State lines ...
Mr. kinabalu, I think it'd take some doing to lose to Trump next time.
Not only did he narrowly win a number of states, now he has a record to defend. Plus, we aren't at the height of an anti-Establishment wave as we were last time. And the Democrat nominee is unlikely to make Clinton's mistake of wasting resources on safe states and neglecting battlegrounds.
Yes, that's my take.The stars aligned for Trump last time in a quite freakish way.
I would be just a bit more relaxed, however, if the US economy would play ball and take a dive.
The betting has him just under 50% chance of winning 2020, which is probably about right.
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
This popular vote is a red herring. The biggest state Trump didn't even campaign and Clinton stacked up votes, totally irrelevant to the real battlegrounds of which Trump won nearly all. Trump was a political unknown last time, now he has a track record and he will get his base out for sure.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
Sure the popular vote is a red herring, in the same way as national vote shares in the UK are a red herring: the only thing that counts is the vote in the 650 constituencies
The comparison you can make between America and here is imagine Liverpool to be as big as London and apply the proportion of vote there to California. So yes the popular vote is irrelevant in the USA and not what was campaigned for.
Comments
(qv ‘Pocahontas is finished’....)
Warren is much more likely to trouble Trump in a 1 on 1 and the incumbent will have to be soundly beaten in those debates.
Farage should be able to have a clear run at Beaconsfield . . .
If the economy goes definitively south he won't have much chance, although he might start a war in which case who knows?
If the economy is good usually the incumbent has good chances, but Trump's approval ratings have been very consistently bad. I'm guessing there's enough people going to vote against him that he will anyway lose the popular vote (again). No idea how likely he is to repeat the trick of nevertheless winning in the electoral college, but there's an obvious path of Democrats winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where Clinton seemed particularly disliked in 2016), and keeping the other states Clinton won.
It probably depends a lot on how successful Republicans are in making the Dem candidate just as disliked as Trump is. Expect a very nasty campaign.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ZkKzrVqLvqKv
and then he wants to remain there so "delay is unavoidable"
While I don't want him as PM he is just about the only person who can pull off the lies required to get us into a sane result for Brexiters (where sane is left without No Deal)...
That sadly does mean that Nigel isn't going anywhere which is a problem for Boris....
Go remain and he loses those seats but for any Brexiter there is a simple question to ask. If you are so certain we should leave why are you worried about a second referendum? What have you got to lose when you will win that second referendum and confirm the result....
That's why a second referendum is the safest option for Labour - it's not perfect but given where their votes come from they can't go for much else.
and they can't ask for a general election as they have got one...
He has supreme faith in his own ability to bullshit his way out of a corner. Or to say whachyagonnadoaboudit to people when he lets them down
It's why he is able to promise the same job to multiple people. The promise delivers what he wants from the situation in front of him and he doesn't think or worry about later. That he doesn't think his actions have consequences is obvious from his private life
Sorry Roger!
Nevertheless, I think America is ready to do that now. My overwhelming feeling is that he is a one term president. I think the American people will decide that 4 years of this is enough.
The only sane way to negotiate is to be prepared to walk away empty handed. Anything else isn't negotiating it is grovelling.
Looks like the economy will be going badly by mid 2020. Red flashing warning signs all over the place, especially bond yields.
I find it worrying, but very understandable.
If the Leave side continually trumpet that they won't accept a win unless it's their definition of Brexit, that the vote had to mean precisely what they want it to mean, and that they'll do their damndest to make sure it doesn't pass... it's totally natural to think "Well, screw you if you won't take 'yes' for an answer" and vote against it as well.
Thinking of the old Overton Window - the ERG-er type want to shift the discourse to the point where only very very hard Brexit options are acceptable (we can see how they're now trying to define the WA as "soft Brexit" and "Brexit in Name Only"), so failing to resist them - well, I don't know if I'd have voted against the WA, but I can certainly empathise with those who did.
And that Parliament is badly split and unable to plump for one option - in a way, that's only fair, as they're supposed to be representative of the country, which is badly split and unable to plump for one option...
I think both sides are playing chicken, convinced the other cannot follow through and they can't really lose, and one side at least is horrifically mistaken.
I've stocked up on bread flour for the bread maker, frozen vegetables and fruits, and other essentials, just to be on the safe side - after all, we're going to eat them anyway; we'll just have a bit more in reserve at any given time.
I think some of the betting is as good as finding money off the pavement, such is the unreliability and probable bias in the American polls. Ours are not good, theirs are even worse. I don't think the campaign will be as nasty as last time, Trump will want to play a different way this time, maybe if Harris is the opponent but I don't see that.
Now?
God, no.
Now, to be fair, I haven't been to any party events in the last few weeks, and it is possible that opinions have changed recently. The sentiment that 'yes, Boris will be an awful PM but we have to choose him to see off Farage' is one which gets reported quite a lot, and it may explain what is happening. If that is right, the Boris honeymoon within the party could be reversed very quickly.
"Sir: I think I am right in identifying myself as the person described, mistakenly, by Alan Watkins (Books, 13 April ) as `Asquith's illegitimate daughter'. May I correct him on a number of points? Hilda Harrisson, my mother, was not a journalist, she was a distinguished artist; she was not a friend of Asquith's daughter, Violet, she was introduced to Mr Asquith by Lucy Graham Smith, Margot Asquith's half-sister. My father, Major Roland Harrisson DSO, was still alive and fighting in the trenches in France when I was born. My mother was not the sort of person to be having an affair — even with the Prime Minister — in such a situation. Mr Asquith's letters to her at the time are friendly but in no way display the intimacy which a closer relationship would suggest.
It was Raymond Asquith's death, followed later by my father's, that contributed strongly to the mutual comfort and love which subsequently developed.
May I, in spite of the need to rap Alan over the knuckles, express my continuing admiration and affection for him, and also my gratitude for the kind adjectives he applies to me?
Anne Symonds
4 Lantern Close, London SW15"
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/27th-april-1996/26/kind-but-not-quite-right
Then it doesn't matter who is party leader...
I would be reasonably confident with Elizabeth Warren too. But I prefer Kamala and not just because she is my bet. The key difference for me is that I don't think Warren can win big - too niche - whereas Kamala I think can. And although my main concern is The Donald out, I do care about the margin. It matters a lot.
The one I don't want is Sanders. I can see him managing to lose.
Thinking no deal is atrocious then voting in a way that makes it more likely just seems weird to me.
F1: I don't want to shock anyone, but in first practice Hamilton was fastest.
Of course he managed to win last time despite negative approval ratings, not sure how much that was specific to Clinton already being strongly disliked, but I'm guessing another candidate might have beaten him?
https://order-order.com/2019/06/28/charity-commission-retracts-official-warning-iea/
There's a "fundamentals" approach that says, incumbents normally win, the parties get two terms each, if the economy is good then the incumbent gets reelected. If that's right then Trump will win, and there's nothing the Democrats can do except hope the economy crashes.
Then there's a theory of how different groups vote, where you can look at Trump's supporters and see that he only has a minority and there's a significant portion of Republicans, plus most independents, who think he's a terrible person and won't vote for him unless the Democrats also pick someone really bad. On this theory the fact that he won in the first place was a fluke, coming from the Dems picking someone generally weak and bad at strategy, plus good luck with the electoral college and the Comey letter. On this theory the Dems can win easily as long as they don't go too far left.
Finally there's a theory that swing voters no longer exist and nowadays it's all about enthusing the base. Confusingly this has basically the opposite recommendation for the Dems from the previous theory.
I think I lean towards the middle one but I'm not at all confident that I'm right.
This will give him a crucial boost in all those states he won by razor thin margins.
On Ref2, yes the 2019 ship has indeed sailed. No way is it happening this year. In fact laying that market - now closed out - has been my best politics bet of the last few months.
But the route to Ref2 in 2020 or later is clear enough -
A 'Brexit' general election which Labour win with Ref2 in their manifesto.
Really good chance of that IMO.
Or something like that.
AFAIR the polling average had Trump winning Florida and Ohio. It even had him winning Nevada which he failed to do.
The one place the polls failed was the Midwest Rustbelt. And even then the failure was overstating Clinton support. Trump barely got more votes than Romney.
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
Nothing much has changed from last time, only Trump will probably win most of the swing states more handily with 4 years solid economy behind him. Only a handful will probably change hands, maybe only one or two is a very good bet.
I'm not convinced the 'fundamentals' apply in the same way anymore. You can have a strong economy, and an awful lot of people struggling with healthcare and education costs (google the Baumol Effect). This isn't Trump's direct fault, but he quite blatantly doesn't give a damn about addressing it.
There's no reason for two and three not to apply equally. The successful candidate is one that can both enthuse the base and hold on to the middle ground. Simply by running against Trump, Democrats have a built in advantage in being able to pull off that trick.
So long as they don't pick Sanders...
What did happen was that the Democrats vote dropped by up to 10 percentage points in those states.
If you're confident it's a sure thing and willing to tie up the money you can back Trump to win at evens or better, but I'm not sure that represents value (I'm not sure laying at those odds is value either).
https://thinkprogress.org/how-abraham-lincoln-rigged-the-senate-for-republicans/