I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
"Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it"
Labour is being propped up by the FPTP electoral system, if we had PR they would probably be running a poor 4th. The Lib Dems might not replace them but tif they win enough votes they will push Labour back towards the centre if/when Corbyn loses his second GE.
Who do I report offences against Blockqoutes too?
Labour members probably won't elect a centrist if we lose the next election.
I've never really understood how block quotes works but I usually get it right!
Centre left will do and if they don't move they will continue to lose elections as they did during the SDP/Alliance years until such time as they decide not to keep banging their heads against the wall. Ideological purity is fine but the reality is a hard Brexit Tory government. As I said Corbyn is very very lucky that he has the prop of our Buggin's turn voting system to hold him up.
As John Curtice has shown while 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back Yes to independence, 64% of Scottish Leave voters still back No so by no means does Brexit guarantee a Yes vote in any indyref2, at most it would be around 50 50
You do realise that 51% of Scottish Remain voters is a considerably larger number than 64% of Scottish Leave voters?
51% of scottish remain voters is 850000(ish) and 64% of leave voters is 650000(ish) but that also means that 49% of remain voters still back the union which is much larger than the 36% of the leave voters. if you add the totals for all four you get 54% stay in the union. that could always change under no-deal brexit or PM boris though
Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College
I'm more than happy with that 2% for Kamala at this stage. The gap will grow when she hits top gear. She's Obama in a skirt.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
She's not, you know.
Look back at Hillary '08 or '16. Can you think of one video clip which was relentlessly reshared? Or which in any way shaped the debate? I can think of two: when she looked physically frail in '16, and when she ended up almost crying when battling Obama for the nomination.
Compare and contrast with Harris. She dismantled William Barr in cross examination. And then she hammered Biden in the debate.
So argue all you like that Harris is unelectable as a black woman in modern America. But don't claim she is a charisma free zone, because she's not.
Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College
I'm more than happy with that 2% for Kamala at this stage. The gap will grow when she hits top gear. She's Obama in a skirt.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
She's not, you know.
Look back at Hillary '08 or '16. Can you think of one video clip which was relentlessly reshared? Or which in any way shaped the debate? I can think of two: when she looked physically frail in '16, and when she ended up almost crying when battling Obama for the nomination.
Compare and contrast with Harris. She dismantled William Barr in cross examination. And then she hammered Biden in the debate.
So argue all you like that Harris is unelectable as a black woman in modern America. But don't claim she is a charisma free zone, because she's not.
Harris had a few good lines in the debate that appealed to liberal Democrats, for swing voters who voted for Trump in 2016 but Obama Biden in 2008 and 2012 as today's ABC news poll shows it is still Biden who appeals not Harris
"Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it"
Labour is being propped up by the FPTP electoral system, if we had PR they would probably be running a poor 4th. The Lib Dems might not replace them but tif they win enough votes they will push Labour back towards the centre if/when Corbyn loses his second GE.
Before and if that ever happens, like it or not we have at least 5 years of Boris Buffoonery.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
Nothing like HRC. Does not have the Clinton baggage and is considerably more charismatic.
If anything she is an African American Warren. So a black John Kerry in a skirt (if we must).
Does the deeply sub-optimal Donald Trump stand a chance of beating a black John Kerry in a skirt? No. Won't even be close.
Even without the skirt he will struggle.
If Harris can keep Hillary’s vote and get more African Americans to turn out in swing states, she wins.
At most she could scrape home and that depends on her not losing even more white working class voters to Trump in the swing states than Hillary did offsetting any gains with African Americans.
Biden by contrast leads Trump by 10% in the popular vote with ABC today compared to just 2% for Harris
The national polls are pretty irrelevant, though.
Exactly. In 2016, the polls said Hillary would win. She did "win" by 3m votes. Except not where it counts. I'd think there is no point looking at US polls. Just concentrate on MI, PA, WI, OH, AZ [new ], MN, NV, NC. FL, possibly IA. Unless TX gives us a big surprise. In any case, it's the turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that will determine the outcome.
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
We had Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin well before social media and liberals like Macron and Obama have used social media to help them win.
I don't think social media leads inevitably to authoritarianism
Wow, I'm agreeing with HYUFD!
Credit where credit is due. HYUFD makes a good point.
"Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it"
Labour is being propped up by the FPTP electoral system, if we had PR they would probably be running a poor 4th. The Lib Dems might not replace them but tif they win enough votes they will push Labour back towards the centre if/when Corbyn loses his second GE.
Who do I report offences against Blockqoutes too?
Labour members probably won't elect a centrist if we lose the next election.
With the exception of Chris Williamson, any one of the potential candidates has to be head and shoulders above Corbyn. The starting bar is very, very, very low remember.
I suspect that Trump is genuinely more worried about Biden than Harris, because Harris is a woman and black, and so Trump would expect to automatically win the votes of the 20-30% of the American electorate that is misogynist and racist.
That is an unsettling but relevant thought.
In truth, I am talking up my confidence that Trump will be beaten (by any solid candidate) because I simply cannot bear to think what it says about America if he wins a 2nd term.
However I do have a genuine feeling about Harris and I've had it since long before her recent boost from the debate. I think she might be very VERY good. I like Warren too but I think for the landslide it has to be Harris.
But let's see how the next few months play out. Maybe I'm wrong.
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
We had Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin well before social media and liberals like Macron and Obama have used social media to help them win.
I don't think social media leads inevitably to authoritarianism
On the other hand, there was the whole coincidence with new forms of mass communication .... not unlike our own times.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
Nothing like HRC. Does not have the Clinton baggage and is considerably more charismatic.
If anything she is an African American Warren. So a black John Kerry in a skirt (if we must).
Does the deeply sub-optimal Donald Trump stand a chance of beating a black John Kerry in a skirt? No. Won't even be close.
Even without the skirt he will struggle.
If Harris can keep Hillary’s vote and get more African Americans to turn out in swing states, she wins.
Is she really accepted as "black" by blacks. Serious question. Remember even Obama wasn't accepted as a serious candidate until he won Iowa. South Carolina turned the tide. Blacks will support a black candidate once they are sure he/she can win.
Clear win for the centre right New Democracy party then and defeat for the populist left Syriza government after just 4 1/2 years in power.
An omen for any future Corbyn Government perhaps that it would not be in for too long
Are you going to tell me which Labour seats your mythical Boris led Tory/Brexit alliance are going to win or not?
Of Labour held seats in the top 50 Tory target seats just 5, Kensington, Stroud, Warwick and Leamington, Battersea and Warrington South voted Remain. Labour Leave seats like Canterbury, Bishop Auckland, Lincoln, Barrow and Furness, Vale of Clwyd, Stoke North, Darlington, Crewe and Nantwich, Gower etc would all be vulnerable to a Boris led Tory Party.
Of Labour held seats in the top 50 to 100 Tory target seats again only 5, Chester, Enfield Southgate, Croydon Central and Eltham voted Remain. Labour Leave seats from Bolsover to Dagenham and Rainham, Gedling, Scunthorpe and Delyn would again be vulnerable to a Boris led Tory Party
Labour are more vulnerable to a Tory-Brexit arrangement than they are to a Boris led Tory Party. Your Labour voting Andy Capp type might be tempted by a straight talking leaver like Nige, he will not be inclined towards a posh-toff who uses language he cannot understand. Johnson knows this.
The Union would not survive a Tory-Brexit government. Bye bye UK.
We have been told on many occassions by Conservatives that Brexit in October trumps the Union, unless Johnson is infront of an audience of Tories in NI, Scotland or Wales, when he says it doesn't.
Wales though voted for Brexit
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but there are four nations in the UK. The end of the Union is not contingent on an independent Wales.
As John Curtice has shown while 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back Yes to independence, 64% of Scottish Leave voters still back No so by no means does Brexit guarantee a Yes vote in any indyref2, at most it would be around 50 50
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College
I'm more than happy with that 2% for Kamala at this stage. The gap will grow when she hits top gear. She's Obama in a skirt.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
She's not, you know.
Look back at Hillary '08 or '16. Can you think of one video clip which was relentlessly reshared? Or which in any way shaped the debate? I can think of two: when she looked physically frail in '16, and when she ended up almost crying when battling Obama for the nomination.
Compare and contrast with Harris. She dismantled William Barr in cross examination. And then she hammered Biden in the debate.
So argue all you like that Harris is unelectable as a black woman in modern America. But don't claim she is a charisma free zone, because she's not.
The problem with Harris for the Democrats is that she simply brings California to the table -so no change. Biden does unsettle PA and the rustbelt. Though WV is now out of the Democrats' grasp. What about Harris-O'Rourke ? Then, Texas could be in play, just !
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
Nothing like HRC. Does not have the Clinton baggage and is considerably more charismatic.
If anything she is an African American Warren. So a black John Kerry in a skirt (if we must).
Does the deeply sub-optimal Donald Trump stand a chance of beating a black John Kerry in a skirt? No. Won't even be close.
Even without the skirt he will struggle.
If Harris can keep Hillary’s vote and get more African Americans to turn out in swing states, she wins.
At most she could scrape home and that depends on her not losing even more white working class voters to Trump in the swing states than Hillary did offsetting any gains with African Americans.
Biden by contrast leads Trump by 10% in the popular vote with ABC today compared to just 2% for Harris
The national polls are pretty irrelevant, though.
Even the state polls show Biden doing far better v Trump than any other Democrat in the swing states
‘Even’ ? State polls for the General Election are even less informative at this point,
I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc
Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.
Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.
Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.
Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.
So no, its not populism.
I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.
Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
Corbyn definitely does not qualify. Nor is there a corbyn cult.
I don’t misunderstand populism, let me explain my understanding.
Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions. populism doesn’t like government, politics or politicians, Nor the checks and counterbalances of democracy. This is not corbyn or the labour platform.
Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view. This is not corbyn or his Labour Party at all.
Corbyns true weakness is he is the very opposite of a populist. There are always divisions of interest and opinion and he sees it is duty of all democratic politicians to take account of them. This means there is a legitimacy to all opposition, and your opponents and their opinions, in politics, or in the press, deserve respect. And he takes that view to such extremes he appears weak and bunkered by a cult.
I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc
Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump. He just has a rather different type of populism. The left/right axis is more of a circle at times with the far right not being very much different to the far left and vice-versa.
Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.
Corbyn hardly puts popular into populism. But what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the charlatan new labour one.
Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.
So no, its not populism.
I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.
Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
Corbyn definitely does not qualify. Nor is there a corbyn cult.
I don’t misunderstand populism, let me explain my understanding.
Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions. populism doesn’t like government, politics or politicians, Nor the checks and counterbalances of democracy. This is not corbyn or the labour platform.
Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view. This is not corbyn or his Labour Party at all.
Corbyns true weakness is he is the very opposite of a populist. There are always divisions of interest and opinion and he sees it is duty of all democratic politicians to take account of them. This means there is a legitimacy to all opposition, and your opponents and their opinions, in politics, or in the press, deserve respect. And he takes that view to such extremes he appears weak and bunkered by a cult.
There is no Corbyn cult.
Riiiiigghhttt . . . he's not the Jezziah he's just a naughty boy.
Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.
The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.
Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
What about Atlee 1945-1952? Didn't they implement genuine austerity, reduce the deficit, and dramatically lower government debt-to-GDP?
As John Curtice has shown while 51% of Scottish Remain voters now back Yes to independence, 64% of Scottish Leave voters still back No so by no means does Brexit guarantee a Yes vote in any indyref2, at most it would be around 50 50
You do realise that 51% of Scottish Remain voters is a considerably larger number than 64% of Scottish Leave voters?
51% of scottish remain voters is 850000(ish) and 64% of leave voters is 650000(ish) but that also means that 49% of remain voters still back the union which is much larger than the 36% of the leave voters. if you add the totals for all four you get 54% stay in the union. that could always change under no-deal brexit or PM boris though
Mebbes aye, but I was just injecting some context into one of the many tropes that is well into double figures for HUYFD repeats.
Of course polling on the subject very definitely changes when no-deal and/or Boris are dropped in the mix.
Sadly, there seem to be very few commentators - either in our politics or on this board - who seem to apply the same principle to the EU. Either everything about the EU is amazing. Or it's all terrible.
[snip]
We need to see a bit more nuance on here.
If you can't recognise a dozen things that are good about your political opponents, then you have become blinkered.
OK how do you go about promoting nuance, when any attempt gets mangled up and overexagerated by both sides straight away.
A ficticious example Eristdoof: "The EU arguing over the word 'marmelade' was pathetic" Mr Anti-EU. "See even Eristdoof admits the EU is overly beaurocratic and meddling which costs our small businesses millions of pounds each year, .... " Mr Pro-EU: "That story was completely over exaggerated and anyway I thought you were on our side. Stop feeding the dragon"
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
We had Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin well before social media and liberals like Macron and Obama have used social media to help them win.
I don't think social media leads inevitably to authoritarianism
On the other hand, there was the whole coincidence with new forms of mass communication .... not unlike our own times.
Yes, radio and cinema newsreels allowed new ways of communicating directly with the populace, and key elements in building popular support.
Social Media takes it further by allowing anyone an audience if they can cut through the noise. Not infrequently eople reply to politicians tweets, so even some redneck in Hicksville Mississippi can gain a worldwide audience when Trump tweets.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
We had Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin well before social media and liberals like Macron and Obama have used social media to help them win.
I don't think social media leads inevitably to authoritarianism
On the other hand, there was the whole coincidence with new forms of mass communication .... not unlike our own times.
Yes, radio and cinema newsreels allowed new ways of communicating directly with the populace, and key elements in building popular support.
Social Media takes it further by allowing anyone an audience if they can cut through the noise. Not infrequently eople reply to politicians tweets, so even some redneck in Hicksville Mississippi can gain a worldwide audience when Trump tweets.
Which is where I slightly take issue with Alastair’s header - I think it’s more about the ability to publish opinion becoming ubiquitous, rather than the proliferation of information.
Biden leads Trump by 10% today with registered voters in an ABC poll, Harris leads Trump only by 2%, the same popular vote lead as Hillary had in 2016 when she lost the Electoral College
I'm more than happy with that 2% for Kamala at this stage. The gap will grow when she hits top gear. She's Obama in a skirt.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
She's not, you know.
Look back at Hillary '08 or '16. Can you think of one video clip which was relentlessly reshared? Or which in any way shaped the debate? I can think of two: when she looked physically frail in '16, and when she ended up almost crying when battling Obama for the nomination.
Compare and contrast with Harris. She dismantled William Barr in cross examination. And then she hammered Biden in the debate.
So argue all you like that Harris is unelectable as a black woman in modern America. But don't claim she is a charisma free zone, because she's not.
The problem with Harris for the Democrats is that she simply brings California to the table -so no change. Biden does unsettle PA and the rustbelt. Though WV is now out of the Democrats' grasp. What about Harris-O'Rourke ? Then, Texas could be in play, just !
I think you're confusing popular with well known. Biden is well known. Harris is not.
Sadly, there seem to be very few commentators - either in our politics or on this board - who seem to apply the same principle to the EU. Either everything about the EU is amazing. Or it's all terrible.
[snip]
We need to see a bit more nuance on here.
If you can't recognise a dozen things that are good about your political opponents, then you have become blinkered.
OK how do you go about promoting nuance, when any attempt gets mangled up and overexagerated by both sides straight away.
A ficticious example Eristdoof: "The EU arguing over the word 'marmelade' was pathetic" Mr Anti-EU. "See even Eristdoof admits the EU is overly beaurocratic and meddling which costs our small businesses millions of pounds each year, .... " Mr Pro-EU: "That story was completely over exaggerated and anyway I thought you were on our side. Stop feeding the dragon"
I'd say simply say what you believe and don't worry about 'sides'. That's what I do.
People call me a PB Tory but I'm prepared to attack the Tories whenever I think they're in the wrong. Because my views and comments represent me and not anybody else.
You do realise that 51% of Scottish Remain voters is a considerably larger number than 64% of Scottish Leave voters?
It still equates to over 50% for No
you'd need around 60% of remain to get to a yes in indyref2
Indeed, while a narrow majority of Remainers now back Yes whereas in 2014 a majority of them backed No, the 64% of Leave voters still backing No means Brexit alone is not enough to guarantee a Yes win unless even more Remainers shift to Yes
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
The swing voter in Iowa....
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-iowans-greeted-kamala-harris-after-her-debate-breakthrough In Indianola, Harris’s charm worked on a former Trump supporter. Mike Kaldenberg, a retired air-force officer from Winterset, Iowa, had heard about the party from his wife, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who was out of town caring for a relative. In 2016, Kaldenberg had voted for Trump. “My military training told me that what Hillary did with her e-mails was strategically poisonous,” he said. “I just couldn’t. She should have known better.” Kaldenberg’s frustration with Trump’s tariffs, and their devastating effect on the state’s farmers, have caused him to sour on the President. “The more I learned about it, the more I thought, ‘I really screwed up.’ I didn’t have any facts at the time.” Kaldenberg now hopes the Democrats will “come out here” and “stump the heck” out of Iowa. “I think Joe probably has been around a little too long, and Bernie won’t last very long. I love Pete, but Kamala—she’s a smart woman...
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
We had Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Stalin well before social media and liberals like Macron and Obama have used social media to help them win.
I don't think social media leads inevitably to authoritarianism
On the other hand, there was the whole coincidence with new forms of mass communication .... not unlike our own times.
Yes, radio and cinema newsreels allowed new ways of communicating directly with the populace, and key elements in building popular support.
Social Media takes it further by allowing anyone an audience if they can cut through the noise. Not infrequently eople reply to politicians tweets, so even some redneck in Hicksville Mississippi can gain a worldwide audience when Trump tweets.
Which is where I slightly take issue with Alastair’s header - I think it’s more about the ability to publish opinion becoming ubiquitous, rather than the proliferation of information.
Yes, I see social media rather like a giant pile of books compared to a properly indexed library. It is hard to find what really matters, and easy to find what is on top because it is popular.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
@rcs1000 . Your cry for nuance, for shades of grey is good one. Many professionals work in shades of grey. Social media (of which this can be considered a part) has destroyed that. Outrage grabs attention and outrage is a simple, easy emotion. The genie of out of the bottle. I’ve said before that I think social media will kill western liberal democracy and I’ve seen little to make me review that opinion in any meaningful way.
Oh, the irony of calling for nuance in the same breath as saying "social media will kill Western liberal democracy".
I agree with those downthread pointing out that there were plenty of dictators before social media, and not so many since (at least in the West). Social media doesn't exacerbate opinions to the extremes of the spectrum; it just looks like it because everything is suddenly moving so much faster.
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty, Huckabee or Petraeus run and won the nomination I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I don't. I don't see any evidence that either would have given a significantly bigger switng than Romney himself achieved.
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
With all due respect, HYUFD, all you are measuring is name recognition at this point.
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc
Corbyn is every bit as much of a populist as Trump.
Corbyn's populist far left appeal is little different to Trump's far right appeal. With the associations with antisemitism etc to boot too.
what made him leader wasn’t populism at all, but a desire to see a radical alternative in government after perceived wasted years of new labour and the coalition. It’s not a cult behind corbyn, but a cult wanting a proper labour government unlike the centre right new labour one.
Problem is for such a cult, it can’t guarantee another left leader to replace him in a fresh leadership contest, so Corbyn must stay there like the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne to protect their own self interest.
I think that's to misunderstood 'populism.' If we take it as, 'offering policies without considering their impact, for the sole purpose of securing votes,' Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.
Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
Corbyn definitely does not qualify. Nor is there a corbyn cult.
I don’t misunderstand populism, let me explain my understanding.
Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions. populism doesn’t like government, politics or politicians, Nor the checks and counterbalances of democracy. This is not corbyn or the labour platform.
Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view. This is not corbyn or his Labour Party at all.
Corbyns true weakness is he is the very opposite of a populist. There are always divisions of interest and opinion and he sees it is duty of all democratic politicians to take account of them. This means there is a legitimacy to all opposition, and your opponents and their opinions, in politics, or in the press, deserve respect. And he takes that view to such extremes he appears weak and bunkered by a cult.
There is no Corbyn cult.
Riiiiigghhttt . . . he's not the Jezziah he's just a naughty boy.
That’s right. Yes. I’m glad you’re listening.
If it was a cult they would never dream of swapping him for another, fresher, younger left leader. They can’t risk it so like I said the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne rallying round him to protect their own self interest.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
With 151 seats needed for a majority then New Democracy has now crossed that threshold.
New Democracy on its highest share of the vote since 2007 and Syriza down about 4% on the last election with Golden Dawn also down 4%, little change elsewhere apart from the Varoufakis group enters the Parliament for the first time
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Life and family commitments are stopping me from posting much at the moment but I need to say Alastair’s thread header is just brilliant. Absolutely outstanding.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
With all due respect, HYUFD, all you are measuring is name recognition at this point.
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
Name recognition, name recognition, always name recognition.
Harris got a huge profile in the last debate and still she does far less well v Trump than Biden does with ABC today
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
If it was a cult they would never dream of swapping him for another, fresher, younger left leader. They can’t risk it so like I said the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne rallying round him to protect their own self interest.
Life and family commitments are stopping me from posting much at the moment but I need to say Alastair’s thread header is just brilliant. Absolutely outstanding.
It is indeed an interesting header, thanks @AlastairMeeks
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
With all due respect, HYUFD, all you are measuring is name recognition at this point.
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
Name recognition, name recognition, always name recognition.
Harris got a huge profile in the last debate and still she does far less well v Trump than Biden does with ABC today
She has gravitas. She has to be taken seriously. She also has "enemies" within Democrats. But she cannot be ignored any more.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
'Moderates favor Biden over Trump by a 29-point margin, compared with 18- to 15-point margins for Warren, Sanders or Buttigieg vs. Trump (and 21 points for Harris). Biden leads among most groups save traditionally GOP-leaning ones, including whites who lack a college degree, conservatives, older adults and rural Americans. Among blacks, Biden’s 83-12 lead is as good as Harris’ 77-16%. And Biden has a 17-point lead among college-educated white women, which is better than Harris’ 9 points and Warren’s 7 points in the same key Democratic group. Indeed neither of those is a statistically significant lead. ' https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
I would not draw a distinction between populists and people like Corbyn or Die Linke etc
.
So no, its not populism.
Corbyn definitely qualifies, as would Le Pen, Die Linke, Syriza, Chavez and Trump.
Remember, Trump was less popular than Hilary Clinton, but nobody denies he's a populist.
Corbyn definitely does not qualify. Nor is there a corbyn cult.
Corbyns true weakness is he is the very opposite of a populist. There are always divisions of interest and opinion and he sees it is duty of all democratic politicians to take account of them. And he takes that view to such extremes he appears weak and bunkered by a cult.
This is a laughable characterisation. Corbyn's politics have all the hallmarks of shallow populism, just of the far left variety. First of all it displays exactly the things you have cited as evidence of populism - from almost day one Corbyn appealed to the will of the membership over the heads of the 'professional politicians' in the PLP and constantly seeks to undermine institutions that say things they don't like, whether it be the civil service, BBC, or even security services, as biased and suspect tools of an anti-socialist establishment.
"Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view."
I can hardly think of a better description of Corbynism's revolutionary self-righteousness and refusal to believe any view but its own has any moral right to exist. For example, what other party would repeatedly tell a minority group that they know better than them about the racism they experience? Or othered half of their own party's MPs as nefarious traitors ripe for purging?
Unlike a Benn, who had a substantive philosophical and practical underpinning, Corbyn's shallow populism is a reason for hiss success. He's essentially a declarative socialist - he speaks of a great ill then posits socialism, or rather his narrow version of it, as a catch-all solution, without explaining how it does this. This means that while Benn would acknowledge costs to his plans in pursuit of a greater good, Corbyn rarely does. It allows him within Labour to be a person people project their hopes on to and who's always on the side of the 'good' things rather than the nasty chap who tells you fairies aren't real.
It might've worked on the country, but for the fact he's not a very good politician, whose past and other vile attachments are less readily forgiven outside Labour than within it. And whose Stalinist party management style leads to scandals an a total misreading of feeling on Brexit that has totally undermined his project.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
538 had an interesting piece on the Primary debates. Unlike the POTUS ones, they really do change minds.
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
'Moderates favor Biden over Trump by a 29-point margin, compared with 18- to 15-point margins for Warren, Sanders or Buttigieg vs. Trump (and 21 points for Harris). Biden leads among most groups save traditionally GOP-leaning ones, including whites who lack a college degree, conservatives, older adults and rural Americans. Among blacks, Biden’s 83-12 lead is as good as Harris’ 77-16%. And Biden has a 17-point lead among college-educated white women, which is better than Harris’ 9 points and Warren’s 7 points in the same key Democratic group. Indeed neither of those is a statistically significant lead. ' https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
What are the figures for don't knows? Or "might change their minds"?
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
Bar Crete that map looks covered in New Democracy blue
Yes, though I think a quarter of the population are in Athens and suburbs. Thessalonika looks blue though, despite a million population. May be the North Macedonia factor.
Greece is like us and the USA, with the cities left wing and the countryside conservative.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
With 151 seats needed for a majority then New Democracy has now crossed that threshold.
New Democracy on its highest share of the vote since 2007 and Syriza down about 4% on the last election with Golden Dawn also down 4%, little change elsewhere apart from the Varoufakis group enters the Parliament for the first time
Varoufakis is what Sandy Rentool uses as her avatar isn’t it?
But what is Socratic ignorance? Is it the difference between Yanis and syriza?
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents.
In 2000, the US economy had just gone through a stock market crash and was in a brief recession. That does not help your point.
It's called a leadership election @MJW, your supposed to appeal to the membership. After that he compromised with the PLP with things like Trident and having a broad shadow cabinet from across the party, the response was to take advantage of this weakness and try to force him out, unfortunately he managed to use that old Stalinist trick of beating his internal rivals democratically...
Also if you want purity try those who walked out when their side doesn't get to be in charge, just because you agree with the zealots on the centre doesn't negate their actions which prove they have a higher demand for purity than Corbyn.
As for the civil service he has criticised claims from civil servants about political leaders, which even the civil service have agreed were wrong. Or are you saying the civil service is wrong on this?
Also the scandals are largely due to a negative press, one 'scandal' we had was a Jewish woman saying Jew, she is the wrong kind of Jew because she supports Corbyn though, so that was a scandal, another was when he met a group of Jewish people for Seder again though not the kind of Jews Guido Fawkes approves of so another scandal.
I'm not sure simply being opposed to Guido Fawkes, the Mail, Times, Sun, and other extreme right publications counts as populism, I might argue just the opposite!
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
Eh? In 2000 and 1960 the incumbent was not running. In both cases it was the current Vice-Pres who was running, which is a totally different matter.
I've just looked up sitting VPs who won the presidency through an election. Of course there was George Bush Snr but I had to go back a long way to find the previous one, 95 years ago.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
Bush and JFK weren't facing incumbents.
Gore was the incumbent Vice President as was Nixon
It's called a leadership election @MJW, your supposed to appeal to the membership. After that he compromised with the PLP with things like Trident and having a broad shadow cabinet from across the party, the response was to take advantage of this weakness and try to force him out, unfortunately he managed to use that old Stalinist trick of beating his internal rivals democratically...
Also if you want purity try those who walked out when their side doesn't get to be in charge, just because you agree with the zealots on the centre doesn't negate their actions which prove they have a higher demand for purity than Corbyn.
As for the civil service he has criticised claims from civil servants about political leaders, which even the civil service have agreed were wrong. Or are you saying the civil service is wrong on this?
Also the scandals are largely due to a negative press, one 'scandal' we had was a Jewish woman saying Jew, she is the wrong kind of Jew because she supports Corbyn though, so that was a scandal, another was when he met a group of Jewish people for Seder again though not the kind of Jews Guido Fawkes approves of so another scandal.
I'm not sure simply being opposed to Guido Fawkes, the Mail, Times, Sun, and other extreme right publications counts as populism, I might argue just the opposite!
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
538 had an interesting piece on the Primary debates. Unlike the POTUS ones, they really do change minds.
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
Bar Crete that map looks covered in New Democracy blue
Yes, though I think a quarter of the population are in Athens and suburbs. Thessalonika looks blue though, despite a million population. May be the North Macedonia factor.
Greece is like us and the USA, with the cities left wing and the countryside conservative.
And the suburbs and medium sized towns decide the election
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
Syrizia doesn't seem too damaged despite the turmoil and reverse ferret over the bail outs. Very much an urban/rural divide though, with the interesting exception of Crete.
Bar Crete that map looks covered in New Democracy blue
Yes, though I think a quarter of the population are in Athens and suburbs. Thessalonika looks blue though, despite a million population. May be the North Macedonia factor.
Greece is like us and the USA, with the cities left wing and the countryside conservative.
And Turkey to the list? In fact what countries around the world reverse that trend?
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
Bush and JFK weren't facing incumbents.
Gore was the incumbent Vice President as was Nixon
So yes it is Biden or bust for the Democrats, otherwise Trump will waltz to re election once his ruthless campaign gets under way
With all due respect, HYUFD, that's utter wank.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
Yes, well the US economy is unlikely either to be booming or in deep recession next November so who the Democrats pick will be important.
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
Obama was reasonably popular in 2012 and the economy was ticking along nicely. I don't think the GOP pick mattered that much at all.
Obama's victory margin was 3.9% in 2012 compared to 7.2% in 2008.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
I see no evidence for that at all. Economy ticking along, President comfortably reelected.
George W Bush narrowly won in 2000 with the economy doing well, as did JFK in 1960.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents.
In 2000, the US economy had just gone through a stock market crash and was in a brief recession. That does not help your point.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Thank you for that information. So you agree, the more she becomes known the more she thumps the trump?
And you know his twitter nickname for her and line of attack he is using?
Biden 'thumps Trump', Harris does no better than Hillary did on that poll
But on this polling, early doors it is though, trend is her friend is it not?
Not really, she still does worse than Biden v Trump even with the black vote
No "even" about it. She's a prosecutor. Given the incredibly racist justice system in the US I'd expect her to be doing worse with black people than the general public.
I noticed an interesting article in the Daily Mail today on Boris Johnson being photographed with backbench MPs. Why would MPs be getting pictures taken with a probable new Tory leader? It might mean a GE even though I think they would be crazy to try it and I don't think it is really possible this year for a number of reasons!
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Thank you for that information. So you agree, the more she becomes known the more she thumps the trump?
And you know his twitter nickname for her and line of attack he is using?
Biden 'thumps Trump', Harris does no better than Hillary did on that poll
But on this polling, early doors it is though, trend is her friend is it not?
Not really, she still does worse than Biden v Trump even with the black vote
No "even" about it. She's a prosecutor. Given the incredibly racist justice system in the US I'd expect her to be doing worse with black people than the general public.
Bang goes her chance of getting Obama levels of black turnout then in 2020
I think it's very easy to fixate on the rust belt and the 2020 US election. The reality is that there are many different routes to the Presidency.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
Again, all you're doing is polling name recognition.
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
538 had an interesting piece on the Primary debates. Unlike the POTUS ones, they really do change minds.
Socialists never are. The one thing they weren't is charlatans. They did everything a socialist can including screwing up the economy and running out of other peoples money to spend as far as socialism goes they nailed it.
You realise that it would be just as easy to write two crass sentences about the tories screwing up the country. But I won't I think this forum is better than that.
Of course it would be easy but then you'd be writing fiction whereas what I wrote was non-fiction.
The facts speak for themselves. The Tories in 79 inherited a shambolic mess after the Winter of Discontent and in 97 bequeathed New Labour a golden legacy. Labour ran up the credit card, ran out of money and left office with a note saying "there is no more money" and a deficit of over 10% of GDP. The Tories now have nearly eliminated the deficit they inherited.
Every single Labour government has ran out of money. It is what they do.
What about Atlee 1945-1952? Didn't they implement genuine austerity, reduce the deficit, and dramatically lower government debt-to-GDP?
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
No, she's an African American Hillary with the same level of condescencion if at least not John Kerry in a skirt as Warren is
Nothing like HRC. Does not have the Clinton baggage and is considerably more charismatic.
If anything she is an African American Warren. So a black John Kerry in a skirt (if we must).
Does the deeply sub-optimal Donald Trump stand a chance of beating a black John Kerry in a skirt? No. Won't even be close.
Even without the skirt he will struggle.
If Harris can keep Hillary’s vote and get more African Americans to turn out in swing states, she wins.
At most she could scrape home and that depends on her not losing even more white working class voters to Trump in the swing states than Hillary did offsetting any gains with African Americans.
Biden by contrast leads Trump by 10% in the popular vote with ABC today compared to just 2% for Harris
The national polls are pretty irrelevant, though.
Exactly. In 2016, the polls said Hillary would win. She did "win" by 3m votes. Except not where it counts. I'd think there is no point looking at US polls. Just concentrate on MI, PA, WI, OH, AZ [new ], MN, NV, NC. FL, possibly IA. Unless TX gives us a big surprise. In any case, it's the turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that will determine the outcome.
...and how good a job the GOP does of suppressing their votes
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
Nah. Not only do the LibDems have a more convincing environmental offer, they like the Greens know where they stand on Brexit.
Great thread header and a fascinating topic. With respect to politics, I think we are seeing 'experts' being increasingly able to get their expertise across to voters without gatekeepers. Someone like Paul Krugman has a massive readership - he can talk directly to America without a journalist acting as a go between.
I think we also see that the civil service is increasingly challenged by outside organizations in policy expertise and ideas. Think tanks come up with plenty of policy from across the spectrum and are sometimes more trusted by politicians. Others are more just fronts for certain causes (or indeed big business who would prefer their lobbying to remain anonymous).
ND 39.7% - 158 seats Syrza 31.51% - 86 Socialists 8.05 - 22 Commies 5.34 - 15 EL 3.8 - 10 Varoufakis 3.44 - 9 Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
With 151 seats needed for a majority then New Democracy has now crossed that threshold.
New Democracy on its highest share of the vote since 2007 and Syriza down about 4% on the last election with Golden Dawn also down 4%, little change elsewhere apart from the Varoufakis group enters the Parliament for the first time
Varoufakis is what Sandy Rentool uses as her avatar isn’t it?
But what is Socratic ignorance? Is it the difference between Yanis and syriza?
I think the Lib Dems have a real chance of displacing Labour as the main opposition. It's possible Labour will realise the danger it's in quickly enough that it gets rid of Corbyn before the next election. In that case Johnson is quite likely to win comfortably by splitting the opposition. But if the new Labour leader is able to establish themselves as the most plausible alternative to the Brexiteers, in which case Labour will probably win.
Politics is very fluid right now.
Labour aren't going to be changing leader before the next election, or it is very unlikely anyway.
Also polls don't really look good for the Lib Dems replacing Labour as much as some may wish it.
On current polling LDs + Greens substantially outpoll Labour on its own. In general I don't aggregate two poll results but that pact looks plausible to me.
Green voters will not shift en masse to the 'Tories' Little Helpers'. Much more likely to switch back to Labour at a GE.
Nah. Not only do the LibDems have a more convincing environmental offer, they like the Greens know where they stand on Brexit.
The election will not be any more Brexit dominated than 2017.
Comments
It's an exciting prospect albeit not a little scary.
Centre left will do and if they don't move they will continue to lose elections as they did during the SDP/Alliance years until such time as they decide not to keep banging their heads against the wall. Ideological purity is fine but the reality is a hard Brexit Tory government. As I said Corbyn is very very lucky that he has the prop of our Buggin's turn voting system to hold him up.
Look back at Hillary '08 or '16. Can you think of one video clip which was relentlessly reshared? Or which in any way shaped the debate? I can think of two: when she looked physically frail in '16, and when she ended up almost crying when battling Obama for the nomination.
Compare and contrast with Harris. She dismantled William Barr in cross examination. And then she hammered Biden in the debate.
So argue all you like that Harris is unelectable as a black woman in modern America. But don't claim she is a charisma free zone, because she's not.
One would hope that a third will be unobjectionable, regardless of the colour of the rosette, while half you might vehmently disagree with.
Unless TX gives us a big surprise.
In any case, it's the turnout of Blacks and Hispanics that will determine the outcome.
In truth, I am talking up my confidence that Trump will be beaten (by any solid candidate) because I simply cannot bear to think what it says about America if he wins a 2nd term.
However I do have a genuine feeling about Harris and I've had it since long before her recent boost from the debate. I think she might be very VERY good. I like Warren too but I think for the landslide it has to be Harris.
But let's see how the next few months play out. Maybe I'm wrong.
If the US economy is in recession next November, and people are losing jobs in the rust belt, then even the most charisma free Democrat will be elected.
While if the US economy - and especially the rust belt - is booming, then Jesus Christ himself wouldn't beat Trump.
The last three times a recession coincided with the end of a first term Presidency, the incumbent lost. (Ford -> Carter, Carter -> Reagan, Bush Sr -> Clinton.)
Don't believe me? Look at Wisconsin in the midterms. Wisconsin was won by Trump in 2016. The Democratic Senatorial candidate was a gay woman. And she won more votes - in absolute numbers - than Trump got in 2016. Simply, political and economic winds matter more than candidate profiles.
State polls for the General Election are even less informative at this point,
I don’t misunderstand populism, let me explain my understanding.
Populism pushes the idea of popular sovereignty above the independence of democratic institutions, and the professionalism of the representatives of those institutions. populism doesn’t like government, politics or politicians, Nor the checks and counterbalances of democracy. This is not corbyn or the labour platform.
Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view. This is not corbyn or his Labour Party at all.
Corbyns true weakness is he is the very opposite of a populist. There are always divisions of interest and opinion and he sees it is duty of all democratic politicians to take account of them. This means there is a legitimacy to all opposition, and your opponents and their opinions, in politics, or in the press, deserve respect. And he takes that view to such extremes he appears weak and bunkered by a cult.
Which would be great - performance and margin really matters - but I'll take the 3 points regardless.
Riiiiigghhttt . . . he's not the Jezziah he's just a naughty boy.
Of course polling on the subject very definitely changes when no-deal and/or Boris are dropped in the mix.
A ficticious example
Eristdoof: "The EU arguing over the word 'marmelade' was pathetic"
Mr Anti-EU. "See even Eristdoof admits the EU is overly beaurocratic and meddling which costs our small businesses millions of pounds each year, .... "
Mr Pro-EU: "That story was completely over exaggerated and anyway I thought you were on our side. Stop feeding the dragon"
Social Media takes it further by allowing anyone an audience if they can cut through the noise. Not infrequently eople reply to politicians tweets, so even some redneck in Hicksville Mississippi can gain a worldwide audience when Trump tweets.
Iowa. It's been hammered by the Trump trade war. Look at the House of Representatives result from 2016: it went from 58:42 Republican:Democrat to 46:51 (there was a Libertarian candidate in one of the seats so it doesn't sum to 100). Things have not improved there, and I think it could easily flip to the Democrats.
North Carolina. If a candidate were able to motivate black turnout, then they could win it as Obama did.
Arizona. It's been heading blue for some time, and is increasingly looking like reliably Democrat New Mexico.
Were the Democrats to win those three, then suddenly the rust belt wouldn't seem so essential.
People call me a PB Tory but I'm prepared to attack the Tories whenever I think they're in the wrong. Because my views and comments represent me and not anybody else.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-iowans-greeted-kamala-harris-after-her-debate-breakthrough
In Indianola, Harris’s charm worked on a former Trump supporter. Mike Kaldenberg, a retired air-force officer from Winterset, Iowa, had heard about the party from his wife, a former Hillary Clinton supporter who was out of town caring for a relative. In 2016, Kaldenberg had voted for Trump. “My military training told me that what Hillary did with her e-mails was strategically poisonous,” he said. “I just couldn’t. She should have known better.” Kaldenberg’s frustration with Trump’s tariffs, and their devastating effect on the state’s farmers, have caused him to sour on the President. “The more I learned about it, the more I thought, ‘I really screwed up.’ I didn’t have any facts at the time.” Kaldenberg now hopes the Democrats will “come out here” and “stump the heck” out of Iowa. “I think Joe probably has been around a little too long, and Bernie won’t last very long. I love Pete, but Kamala—she’s a smart woman...
Indeed most likely it looks something like 2012 when the GOP choice of Mitt Romney arguably helped ensure Obama's re election
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/03/24/iowa-2020-biden-and-sanders-neck-and-neck-in-democratic-field-mayor-pete-jumps-to-double-digits/
Latest North Carolina poll has it Biden 49% Trump 46%, Trump 47% Harris 46%.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PPP_Release_NC_62019.pdf
Latest Arizona poll has it Biden 49% Trump 44%, Trump 48% Harris 39%
https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
I agree with those downthread pointing out that there were plenty of dictators before social media, and not so many since (at least in the West). Social media doesn't exacerbate opinions to the extremes of the spectrum; it just looks like it because everything is suddenly moving so much faster.
Had the GOP picked Huntsman or Pawlenty, Huckabee or Petraeus run and won the nomination I think Obama could have been given a run for his money
https://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/home/en/parties/
56% reported so far
ND 39.7% - 158 seats
Syrza 31.51% - 86
Socialists 8.05 - 22
Commies 5.34 - 15
EL 3.8 - 10
Varoufakis 3.44 - 9
Golden Down 2.98 - 0 (threshold is 3%)
That's why Biden and Sanders were polling so well in Iowa in the Democratic primaries a year ago. And now that Iowans know the other candidates better, suddenly Biden and Sanders are polling much less well.
If it was a cult they would never dream of swapping him for another, fresher, younger left leader. They can’t risk it so like I said the praetorian guard lifting Claudius onto a throne rallying round him to protect their own self interest.
Does that tell you anything ?
New Democracy on its highest share of the vote since 2007 and Syriza down about 4% on the last election with Golden Dawn also down 4%, little change elsewhere apart from the Varoufakis group enters the Parliament for the first time
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
Essentially, I have Trump losing AZ, WI and IA to the Dems, but holding onto PA and OH. Which leaves the map neatly dependent on Michigan.
(With a huge caveat: if the Dems were to flip either FL or NC, then it wouldn't matter.)
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1147934935170371584?s=19
Harris got a huge profile in the last debate and still she does far less well v Trump than Biden does with ABC today
More than 40% of Independents say they don't know enough about Harris or Warren to judge them yet. The numbers jump to above 50% with O'Rourke and about 70% with Buttigieg.
Both far better candidates than the incumbents. If the economy is doing badly it can certainly cost you re election but if you face a poor opposition candidate you can narrowly hold on eg Major v Kinnock here in 1992, equally if the economy is doing well it does not guarantee re election if the opposition pick a very good candidate with the right message, hence Blair beat Major in 1997 when the economy was doing much better.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-reaches-career-high-approval-faces-range-reelection/story?id=64117018
"Populism is opportunism masquerading as values and agenda for government, that is moralist ideology. Moralist ideology believing it is the voice of all the people, deaf to anyone with a different view."
I can hardly think of a better description of Corbynism's revolutionary self-righteousness and refusal to believe any view but its own has any moral right to exist. For example, what other party would repeatedly tell a minority group that they know better than them about the racism they experience? Or othered half of their own party's MPs as nefarious traitors ripe for purging?
Unlike a Benn, who had a substantive philosophical and practical underpinning, Corbyn's shallow populism is a reason for hiss success. He's essentially a declarative socialist - he speaks of a great ill then posits socialism, or rather his narrow version of it, as a catch-all solution, without explaining how it does this. This means that while Benn would acknowledge costs to his plans in pursuit of a greater good, Corbyn rarely does. It allows him within Labour to be a person people project their hopes on to and who's always on the side of the 'good' things rather than the nasty chap who tells you fairies aren't real.
It might've worked on the country, but for the fact he's not a very good politician, whose past and other vile attachments are less readily forgiven outside Labour than within it. And whose Stalinist party management style leads to scandals an a total misreading of feeling on Brexit that has totally undermined his project.
https://mobile.twitter.com/skenigsberg/status/1147923363169480706
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-the-impact-of-primary-debates/
Biden and Sanders are going to continue to lose ground, unless they put in much stronger performances, and I don't think they have it in them.
Greece is like us and the USA, with the cities left wing and the countryside conservative.
But what is Socratic ignorance? Is it the difference between Yanis and syriza?
Also if you want purity try those who walked out when their side doesn't get to be in charge, just because you agree with the zealots on the centre doesn't negate their actions which prove they have a higher demand for purity than Corbyn.
As for the civil service he has criticised claims from civil servants about political leaders, which even the civil service have agreed were wrong. Or are you saying the civil service is wrong on this?
Also the scandals are largely due to a negative press, one 'scandal' we had was a Jewish woman saying Jew, she is the wrong kind of Jew because she supports Corbyn though, so that was a scandal, another was when he met a group of Jewish people for Seder again though not the kind of Jews Guido Fawkes approves of so another scandal.
I'm not sure simply being opposed to Guido Fawkes, the Mail, Times, Sun, and other extreme right publications counts as populism, I might argue just the opposite!
And you know his twitter nickname for her and line of attack he is using?
I've just looked up sitting VPs who won the presidency through an election. Of course there was George Bush Snr but I had to go back a long way to find the previous one, 95 years ago.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7220849/BLACK-DOG-Theresa-snaps-Tory-backbenchers-sneak-away.html
ND 39.66% - 158 seats
Syrza 31.62% - 86
Socialists 7.93 - 22
Commies 5.38 - 15
EL 3.75 - 10
Varoufakis 3.48 - 9
Golden Down 2.96 - 0
With respect to politics, I think we are seeing 'experts' being increasingly able to get their expertise across to voters without gatekeepers. Someone like Paul Krugman has a massive readership - he can talk directly to America without a journalist acting as a go between.
I think we also see that the civil service is increasingly challenged by outside organizations in policy expertise and ideas. Think tanks come up with plenty of policy from across the spectrum and are sometimes more trusted by politicians. Others are more just fronts for certain causes (or indeed big business who would prefer their lobbying to remain anonymous).