Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Trump as having a near 50% chance of

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited July 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Trump as having a near 50% chance of winning a second term

Betdata.io chart of Betfair exchange

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    America first like Trump.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I have a feeling that Clinton often led Trump by margins at least as good as the contenders for the Democrat nomination. That should scare the Democrats.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited July 2019
    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    So long as the economy keeps on ticking over then Trump should win in 2020.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    California and New York could each vote 100% for Trump but what matters is the Electoral College. Everyone in the right mind knows that Hilary won the popular vote last time, but Trump won the most delegates.
    It's just like Labour and the Tories piling up huge majorities in a few seats here; you need to win the marginals.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    In response to @algarkirk (fpt):-

    "A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"

    You raise an interesting and important point. We must beware of creating a sort of illiberal liberalism whereby there can only be one received opinion on any topic.

    But the answer surely is this: the No Outsiders programme is not seeking to stop people practising their religion or having a different view of morality and teaching it to their children. What it is seeking to do is teaching children something in addition to what they will learn from their parents etc. It is an addition not a substitute.

    Minorities are entitled to their freedoms to think and believe what they like. They are entitled not to be bullied for thinking differently subject to the proviso that they cannot use that freedom to deny others rights which the law has given them. So their freedom also imposes obligations and the most important obligation is that they cannot use their freedom to bully others and make them feel unwanted in their turn. You cannot demand the right not to be bullied while bullying others. You cannot demand the right not to be made to feel an outsider while at the same time seeking to make another minority feel an outsider.

    My objection to the Parkfield protestors is that they are vocal in demanding rights for themselves while at the same time seeking to deny rights to others. Just no.

    The No Outsiders programme is not seeking to deny the parents the right to pass on their children. But it is informing the children that what their religion teaches is not the be all and end all of what they need to know about life, that there is more information out there which they also need to know. Some of the parents want to limit; the No Outsiders programme wants to enlarge.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2019
    This sort of article in the NYT is completely counterproductive IMO. The problem is Trump himself, not white men in general. But by trying to make it about white men in general, Trump's opponents play into his hands by making it more likely he'll win the next election.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    AndyJS said:

    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.

    Bollocks. Biden guy is a gaffe prone loser who is too bloody old and he looks it.

    There's also too much back history.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway .

    Like him or not Biden is who they should pick . The Dems seem in danger of picking the latter .

    Indeed you could stick a Dem rosette on bubbles the chimp and it would win all the normal Dem states , just as you could do the same with the GOP in their solid states.

    Hillary Clinton lost because instead of going for the win she wanted to trounce Trump spending time campaigning in normal red states like Georgia .

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    AndyJS said:

    This sort of article in the NYT is completely counterproductive IMO. The problem is Trump himself, not white men in general. But by trying to make it about white men in general, Trump's opponents play into his hands by making it more likely he'll win the next election.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    How does it make it about white men in general? The first two thirds of the article are about Trumps thoughts, the last third about how the Democrats should respond tactically.

    If any white American other than Trump reads that and takes offence they are snowflakes.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    Cyclefree said:

    In response to @algarkirk (fpt):-

    "A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"

    You raise an interesting and important point. We must beware of creating a sort of illiberal liberalism whereby there can only be one received opinion on any topic.

    But the answer surely is this: the No Outsiders programme is not seeking to stop people practising their religion or having a different view of morality and teaching it to their children. What it is seeking to do is teaching children something in addition to what they will learn from their parents etc. It is an addition not a substitute.

    Minorities are entitled to their freedoms to think and believe what they like. They are entitled not to be bullied for thinking differently subject to the proviso that they cannot use that freedom to deny others rights which the law has given them. So their freedom also imposes obligations and the most important obligation is that they cannot use their freedom to bully others and make them feel unwanted in their turn. You cannot demand the right not to be bullied while bullying others. You cannot demand the right not to be made to feel an outsider while at the same time seeking to make another minority feel an outsider.

    My objection to the Parkfield protestors is that they are vocal in demanding rights for themselves while at the same time seeking to deny rights to others. Just no.

    The No Outsiders programme is not seeking to deny the parents the right to pass on their children. But it is informing the children that what their religion teaches is not the be all and end all of what they need to know about life, that there is more information out there which they also need to know. Some of the parents want to limit; the No Outsiders programme wants to enlarge.

    Well said, this shouldnt really need saying in 2019, but sadly it clearly does.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    In all of this the Democrats desperately want to stop a second Trump term and who is seen best able to achieve that will likely get the nomination.

    The first part, yes; the second part, I'm not so sure. The dynamics of a primary race are pushing them leftwards.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Pulpstar said:

    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.

    Don't forget that 9% say "don't know". You're basically assuming the 9% that say they don't know will break the same way as the rest.

    A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.

    Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    AndyJS said:

    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.

    Bollocks. Biden guy is a gaffe prone loser who is too bloody old and he looks it.

    There's also too much back history.
    This Mr Smithson knows what he is talking about.

    Name recognition polls give little real illumination.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.

    Don't forget that 9% say "don't know". You're basically assuming the 9% that say they don't know will break the same way as the rest.

    A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.

    Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
    Why? Biden is the most centrist candidate and has the most appeal in the rustbelt Midwest.

    Harris and Warren got extensive coverage from the first Democratic debates
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    AndyJS said:

    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.

    Bollocks. Biden guy is a gaffe prone loser who is too bloody old and he looks it.

    There's also too much back history.
    Yes he’s gaffe prone but back history against Trump isn’t such a big deal . Biden can win the rust belt states , that’s all that matters .

    Picking someone like Warren might appeal to people like me and see huge wins in more Liberal areas of the USA but will make getting to 270 EVs much harder .
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    AndyJS said:

    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.

    Bollocks. Biden guy is a gaffe prone loser who is too bloody old and he looks it.

    There's also too much back history.
    Exactly how camp Trump will be hoping Democratic primary voters think, Trump is clearly praying he faces Warren or Harris rather than Biden
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    AndyJS said:

    This sort of article in the NYT is completely counterproductive IMO. The problem is Trump himself, not white men in general. But by trying to make it about white men in general, Trump's opponents play into his hands by making it more likely he'll win the next election.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Quite right. An absolute open goal - POTUS tweeting straight out racist nonsense - and their hot take is to blame the demographic he comes from, which is also the largest voting demog in the country? It's only missing the word 'deplorables'.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    What the hell does she think investigators do? This is standard investigative stuff.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    They are well within their right to do so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Here's the Democrats basic problem in a close election :

    Hilary margin in the USA 2,868,686

    Hilary margin in California 4,269,978
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited July 2019

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
    He is the same age as Bernie Sanders and only 4 years older than Trump and only 1 year older than Biden
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    Drutt said:

    AndyJS said:

    This sort of article in the NYT is completely counterproductive IMO. The problem is Trump himself, not white men in general. But by trying to make it about white men in general, Trump's opponents play into his hands by making it more likely he'll win the next election.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Quite right. An absolute open goal - POTUS tweeting straight out racist nonsense - and their hot take is to blame the demographic he comes from, which is also the largest voting demog in the country? It's only missing the word 'deplorables'.
    Have you read the article? It is about Trumps thoughts and the democrats response to them.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    In response to @algarkirk (fpt):-

    "A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"

    You raise an interesting and important point. We must beware of creating a sort of illiberal liberalism whereby there can only be one received opinion on any topic.

    But the answer surely is this: the No Outsiders programme is not seeking to stop people practising their religion or having a different view of morality and teaching it to their children. What it is seeking to do is teaching children something in addition to what they will learn from their parents etc. It is an addition not a substitute.

    Minorities are entitled to their freedoms to think and believe what they like. They are entitled not to be bullied for thinking differently subject to the proviso that they cannot use that freedom to deny others rights which the law has given them. So their freedom also imposes obligations and the most important obligation is that they cannot use their freedom to bully others and make them feel unwanted in their turn. You cannot demand the right not to be bullied while bullying others. You cannot demand the right not to be made to feel an outsider while at the same time seeking to make another minority feel an outsider.

    My objection to the Parkfield protestors is that they are vocal in demanding rights for themselves while at the same time seeking to deny rights to others. Just no.

    The No Outsiders programme is not seeking to deny the parents the right to pass on their children. But it is informing the children that what their religion teaches is not the be all and end all of what they need to know about life, that there is more information out there which they also need to know. Some of the parents want to limit; the No Outsiders programme wants to enlarge.

    Well said, this shouldnt really need saying in 2019, but sadly it clearly does.
    It needs saying over and over again. Rights that are not defended are at risk of being lost.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Pulpstar said:

    Here's the Democrats basic problem in a close election :

    Hilary margin in the USA 2,868,686

    Hilary margin in California 4,269,978

    Yes, Trump was winning the popular vote until California's results came in
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.

    Don't forget that 9% say "don't know". You're basically assuming the 9% that say they don't know will break the same way as the rest.

    A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.

    Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
    Why? Biden is the most centrist candidate and has the most appeal in the rustbelt Midwest.

    Harris and Warren got extensive coverage from the first Democratic debates
    Virtually no-one (who will vote) doesn't have a view on Biden-Trump. That's why Biden score so highly.

    10% of the US population (at least) still has no idea who Kamala Harris is.

    This really isn't rocket science.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    I hope so! It is easy to track people using mobile phones. I cannot see how a diplomatic cable being published is in anybodies interest within the UK. It might suit those who wish to cause division between the UK and the US. I am surprised at her involvement in publishing the information. If she gets arrested she will deserve it and I have no sympathy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited July 2019
    I've got some generic DEM bets on. I'll be happiest about those if Biden is the nominee. Warren or Sanders would be OK, I'm likely reversing if it's Harris.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited July 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.

    Don't forget that 9% say "don't know". You're basically assuming the 9% that say they don't know will break the same way as the rest.

    A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.

    Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
    Why? Biden is the most centrist candidate and has the most appeal in the rustbelt Midwest.

    Harris and Warren got extensive coverage from the first Democratic debates
    Virtually no-one (who will vote) doesn't have a view on Biden-Trump. That's why Biden score so highly.

    10% of the US population (at least) still has no idea who Kamala Harris is.

    This really isn't rocket science.
    Given turnout is ~ 56% (What denominator is used particularly by the betting cos ?) plenty more than 10% don't have a view on any of the candidates..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,068
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
    He is the same age as Bernie Sanders and only 4 years older than Trump and only 1 year older than Biden
    Which is too old for all of them. Trump should be pensioned off to play golf in the sun.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454

    I hope so! It is easy to track people using mobile phones. I cannot see how a diplomatic cable being published is in anybodies interest within the UK. It might suit those who wish to cause division between the UK and the US. I am surprised at her involvement in publishing the information. If she gets arrested she will deserve it and I have no sympathy.
    Sounds like the met might only have just over a week before their investigation will get stopped.....probably nothing will happen before then and swept under the carpet afterwards.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    45 - 44 would highly likely be a Trump victory given how many useless votes the Democrats always rack up on the west coast.

    Don't forget that 9% say "don't know". You're basically assuming the 9% that say they don't know will break the same way as the rest.

    A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.

    Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
    Why? Biden is the most centrist candidate and has the most appeal in the rustbelt Midwest.

    Harris and Warren got extensive coverage from the first Democratic debates
    Virtually no-one (who will vote) doesn't have a view on Biden-Trump. That's why Biden score so highly.

    10% of the US population (at least) still has no idea who Kamala Harris is.

    This really isn't rocket science.

    So 90% does have a view of Harris.

    Biden leads Trump by 4% with independents and 6% with suburbanites, the key swing voters.

    Trump however is even or narrowly leads Harris, Warren and Sanders with independents and suburbanites.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/14/biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-2020-presidential-matchup-poll.html

    The Democrats would be making the same mistake as 2004 when they picked the left liberal Kerry over say Joe Lieberman if they overlook Biden
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    I disagree . It seems bizarre logic to ignore states that the Dems lost by a combined vote of 80,000.

    To chase wins in states that have less EVs and were lost by more . I’m not saying ignore the states you mentioned but clearly the Dems need someone who has a good chance of taking back at least two of those they lost .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    Latest Arizona poll

    Biden 49% Trump 44%
    Trump 48% Harris 39%
    Trump 46% Sanders 37%
    Trump 47% Warren 42%

    https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    Latest Arizona poll

    Biden 49% Trump 44%
    Trump 48% Harris 39%
    Trump 46% Sanders 37%
    Trump 47% Warren 42%

    https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
    Biden carries the key demographics of Obama AA voters that didn't turn out for Hilary and also has plenty of "middle ground" appeal amongst working class Democrats I think...
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    nico67 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    I disagree . It seems bizarre logic to ignore states that the Dems lost by a combined vote of 80,000.

    To chase wins in states that have less EVs and were lost by more . I’m not saying ignore the states you mentioned but clearly the Dems need someone who has a good chance of taking back at least two of those they lost .
    If you always fight the last war then you lose the current war.

    It's difficult but you have to try to predict the key flip states that change the result. They're rarely the same states two elections in a row.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    AndyJS said:

    The Democrats would be mad not to choose Biden.

    :+1:
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    Pretty sure if they nominate Warren we are looking at Trump let lose on a 2nd term. We are doomed.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,231
    edited July 2019
    In response to @algarkirk (fpt):-

    "A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"


    I note Cyclefrees response above and wish to comment further. It is a genuine problem for which her solution (additive information, not information denial) is a good but not complete solution. An obvious counter-example would be if the state published on the Internet real-time GPS tracking of every adult and child: plainly additive information but not one we would want.

    It often comes as a surprise to nice people that the rules apply to them: that good, kind, thoughtful people can transgress and be punished for it. When gay marriage was legalised many people sought a conscience exception to the law and some quiet thoughtful people did lose their jobs for disagreeing, a stance that they considered honourable. The Blair administration (correctly IMHO) did not grant a conscience exception and refusing to marry gay people for being gay is not legal.

    The question is not "what does one do with people who transgress the moral code" since the answer is simple: if the code is enshrined in law, one prosecutes them via the law. The question is "who decides what the moral code is, and who decides what the laws to enforce them are?" Those questions are decided by power, and not within my grasp alas.

    I will add one more point tho. One of my bugbears is the rich and powerful often adopt contradictory law, demanding free speech to say things they like and demanding privacy or morality to stop other people saying what they don't like. An obvious example concerns rude words or drug advocacy. When I am made demiurge (hat-tip @geoffw ) I will impose all rules equally to all... :)


  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,701
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
    He is the same age as Bernie Sanders and only 4 years older than Trump and only 1 year older than Biden
    Al Gore is younger than any of those ...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,919

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
    He is the same age as Bernie Sanders and only 4 years older than Trump and only 1 year older than Biden
    Al Gore is younger than any of those ...
    An Inconvenient Truth
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited July 2019
    The Democrats are in danger of doing exactly what a lot parties do when they start letting ideologues get too much traction via publicity, they don't aim to win, they aim for purity. The Democratic party establishment has yet to take a hand in primary season but it will at some point and it will think of winning first.

    The basic maths are against Trump but the Democrats need to avoid tearing themselves to bits and critically need to avoid 3rd party runs. Trumps base is solid but that solid base isn't enough to see him home, the Democrats have the winning of the swing voters alright but the people that will take them over the top are more frothy and a 3rd party run from either side will hurt them plenty.

    On another US note, a story is doing the rounds that Kim Darroch may have been passing on classified info to a US media outlet. The story does appear to have some cred.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    edited July 2019
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    Latest Arizona poll

    Biden 49% Trump 44%
    Trump 48% Harris 39%
    Trump 46% Sanders 37%
    Trump 47% Warren 42%

    https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
    That poll is almost three months old more than two months old, so do bear that in mind.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
    Bloomberg would make a good President but I think he might be too old.
    He is the same age as Bernie Sanders and only 4 years older than Trump and only 1 year older than Biden
    Al Gore is younger than any of those ...
    An Inconvenient Truth
    lol - good one!

    I wonder if he would be tempted? He would actually be pretty good IMO and he probably carried the States that handed Trump the WH.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    The now undoubtedly racist Trump has done a hell of a lot to motivate African Americans and Latinos to get out to vote next year. He’s obviously putting a lot of faith in GOP voter suppression efforts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,919
    Trump's of German heritage. Maybe he can go back to Germany?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    Whereas it may well become a Fascist country.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Trump's comments here are smarter politics than many suggest given that the Democrats are struggling to keep their own left ideologues from high publicity. Cortez and Omar are godsends to the Republicans.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039

    The now undoubtedly racist Trump has done a hell of a lot to motivate African Americans and Latinos to get out to vote next year. He’s obviously putting a lot of faith in GOP voter suppression efforts.

    8% black vote for Trump last time, as I posted earlier today.

    Pretty sure a few % of that will go Biden's way now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Which is exactly the message he would employ against Warren with her tax rises and threats to end private health insurance etc
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    nico67 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    I disagree . It seems bizarre logic to ignore states that the Dems lost by a combined vote of 80,000.

    To chase wins in states that have less EVs and were lost by more . I’m not saying ignore the states you mentioned but clearly the Dems need someone who has a good chance of taking back at least two of those they lost .
    Elections always have parties chasing the results of the last election. It maybe Trump only won the EC because the Dems neglected and took the States as bankers until it was too late. If the Dems make the three states target operations they will probably walk them.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them

    A vote for Trump is a vote for a racist. It’s that simple. But as a Johnson fan you crossed that bridge a while back.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    nico67 said:

    The Dems need to pick the nominee that can win the more rust belt states in the north and not who can rack up huge wins in states they would win anyway

    With all due respect (and I have work to do), this is tosh.

    The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.

    Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.

    But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.

    And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?

    If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
    Latest Arizona poll

    Biden 49% Trump 44%
    Trump 48% Harris 39%
    Trump 46% Sanders 37%
    Trump 47% Warren 42%

    https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
    Biden carries the key demographics of Obama AA voters that didn't turn out for Hilary and also has plenty of "middle ground" appeal amongst working class Democrats I think...
    I'd be very surprised if Biden doesn't take PA.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093

    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
    How on earth does one go about getting classified docs from a mole in London these days and still cover the source? Everywhere in zone 1 is under CCTV, your phone isn't secure (esp Huawei), and presumably nor is your landline. Surely the trick is to leave really slim pickings for GCHQ and only a single meeting so 5 don't have much to go on.

    Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
    Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
    Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
    Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
    Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.

    How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them

    A vote for Trump is a vote for a racist. It’s that simple. But as a Johnson fan you crossed that bridge a while back.

    iirc Bloomberg has ruled this out.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    Anyone got a sense of how big the March for Change will be on Saturday?

    I am singing at a wedding on Pall Mall - and I think we need to change our transport plans to deal with the protest (which marches right by the venue!)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    A (possibly made up) story designed to make conspiracy theorists feel nervous.
    Appears to be succeeding.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    I don't have a good feel for American politics, but I notice Biden can turn out a decent stump speech and that seems to matter over there. Harris and Warren are hopeless speech makers. Sanders is OK but dull. I don't like the man one bit, but Trump knows how to work a crowd.

    Reagan was an excellent speech maker - the acting must have helped - while Clinton and Obama in their different ways were two of the best speakers of modern times
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    HYUFD said:

    Which is exactly the message he would employ against Warren with her tax rises and threats to end private health insurance etc
    The ending of private health insurance is a bad move by Dems. Too far for the US I think, even if I agree with it in principle. Biden has been careful to talk about reforming Obamacare. This is a vote winner against Trump. Totally public option will give him a massive 'Get out of jail' card as millions will be worried about their private insurance and the staggering cost to the deficit.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them

    A vote for Trump is a vote for a racist. It’s that simple. But as a Johnson fan you crossed that bridge a while back.

    Shall we send that missive to some swing states via another Guardian campaign again?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    I hope so! It is easy to track people using mobile phones. I cannot see how a diplomatic cable being published is in anybodies interest within the UK. It might suit those who wish to cause division between the UK and the US. I am surprised at her involvement in publishing the information. If she gets arrested she will deserve it and I have no sympathy.
    I beg to differ. I suspect the motivation was to undermine the political establishment in this country and bump it into (and justify) a closer relationship with Trump's America, rather than causing division between the UK and the US...

    I have no idea whether she was involved but it would not surprise me.

    Regardless, I hope they find and prosecute whoever it was.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,039
    HYUFD said:

    Which is exactly the message he would employ against Warren with her tax rises and threats to end private health insurance etc
    I want Trump out asap. I am pretty worried the Dems will pick Warren. Maybe she would surprise in the final election, but I'm far from convinced.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    viewcode said:

    In response to @algarkirk (fpt):-



    I note Cyclefrees response above and wish to comment further. It is a genuine problem for which her solution (additive information, not information denial) is a good but not complete solution. An obvious counter-example would be if the state published on the Internet real-time GPS tracking of every adult and child.

    It often comes as a surprise to nice people that the rules apply to them: that good, kind, thoughtful people can transgress and be punished for it. When gay marriage was legalised many people sought a conscience exception to the law and some quiet thoughtful people did lose their jobs for disagreeing, a stance that they considered honourable. The Blair administration (correctly IMHO) did not grant a conscience exception and refusing to marry gay people for being gay is not legal.

    The question is not "what does one do with people who transgress the moral code" since the answer is simple: if the code is enshrined in law, one prosecutes them via the law. The question is "who decides what the moral code is, and who decides what the laws to enforce them are?" Those questions are decided by power, and not within my grasp alas.




    One of the issues to be asked is whether moral codes should be enforced by the law at all. This was debated by lawyers in the period before the Wolfenden Report. Effectively, the law used to enforce a largely Christian moral code (hence the ban on homosexuality, suicide & the strict divorce laws). We have abandoned that by and large. But some minority faiths not only have a moral code which used to be the norm here but also feel that the law should reflect that moral code - at least in practice if not de jure - for their own community and possibly more widely.

    That is a step back to a pre-Wolfenden world.

    My view is that moral codes & law should not be one & the same, partly because there are different moral codes & partly because law based on one religion's moral code is effectively a theocracy rather than a democracy. That is not a world I want to live in.

    So the question then arises: how does the law determine what is / is not legal when it comes to matters of general morality. What are the limits of allowable conscience exceptions. That is a matter of power & numbers. If, for instance, the Muslim population grew to a significant extent & did not change its views in - say - a world of PR it is possible to imagine a situation where reversal of some rights for some minorities might be a price that a government has to pay to get & stay in power. It is not inconceivable. That is why it is both important to keep on making the case for the rights that we do have & try and change attitudes. Otherwise we could well find that having abandoned our own Christian-determined law we end up substituting it for another law informed by a very different religion.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Y0kel said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden.

    If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them

    A vote for Trump is a vote for a racist. It’s that simple. But as a Johnson fan you crossed that bridge a while back.

    Shall we send that missive to some swing states via another Guardian campaign again?

    Who cares what they think in swing states? I live in the UK. Trump is a racist.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Drutt said:

    AndyJS said:

    This sort of article in the NYT is completely counterproductive IMO. The problem is Trump himself, not white men in general. But by trying to make it about white men in general, Trump's opponents play into his hands by making it more likely he'll win the next election.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Quite right. An absolute open goal - POTUS tweeting straight out racist nonsense - and their hot take is to blame the demographic he comes from, which is also the largest voting demog in the country? It's only missing the word 'deplorables'.
    Have you read the article? It is about Trumps thoughts and the democrats response to them.
    Just triggered by the headline, I guess.
    Which perhaps proves their point ?

  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    HYUFD said:

    Which is exactly the message he would employ against Warren with her tax rises and threats to end private health insurance etc
    I want Trump out asap. I am pretty worried the Dems will pick Warren. Maybe she would surprise in the final election, but I'm far from convinced.
    A second Trump win would increase the chances of Pence having to take over at some point. And Pence is a very different kind of scary. In a number of ways, more scary.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Drutt said:

    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
    How on earth does one go about getting classified docs from a mole in London these days and still cover the source? Everywhere in zone 1 is under CCTV, your phone isn't secure (esp Huawei), and presumably nor is your landline. Surely the trick is to leave really slim pickings for GCHQ and only a single meeting so 5 don't have much to go on.

    Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
    Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
    Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
    Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
    Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.

    How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
    Is that an application for a job with the spooks?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Roberta Blackman Woods (City of Durham) will retire at next GE

    So far 9 Labour MPs have told the party HQ they do not intend to seek re-selection in the upcoming "trigger ballot" procedure:

    Geoffrey Robinson (Coventy NW): born 1938; MP since 1976
    Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): born in 1943, MP since 1987
    Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): born in 1946, MP since 1983
    Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): born in 1946; MP since 1989
    Stephen Pound (Ealing North): born in 1948; MP since 1997
    Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse): born in 1952, MP since 1997
    Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead): born in 1955, MP since 2010
    Roberta Blackman- Woods (City of Durham): born in 1957, MP since 2005
    Stephen Twigg (Liverpool West Derby): born in 1966, MP from 1997 to 2005 and then since 2010.

    MP can draw their parliamentary pension at 65.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Y0kel said:

    The Democrats are in danger of doing exactly what a lot parties do when they start letting ideologues get too much traction via publicity, they don't aim to win, they aim for purity. The Democratic party establishment has yet to take a hand in primary season but it will at some point and it will think of winning first.

    The basic maths are against Trump but the Democrats need to avoid tearing themselves to bits and critically need to avoid 3rd party runs. Trumps base is solid but that solid base isn't enough to see him home, the Democrats have the winning of the swing voters alright but the people that will take them over the top are more frothy and a 3rd party run from either side will hurt them plenty.

    On another US note, a story is doing the rounds that Kim Darroch may have been passing on classified info to a US media outlet. The story does appear to have some cred.

    Wokeness is all about purity, and expelling people who fail to be pure.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    The now undoubtedly racist Trump has done a hell of a lot to motivate African Americans and Latinos to get out to vote next year. He’s obviously putting a lot of faith in GOP voter suppression efforts.

    8% black vote for Trump last time, as I posted earlier today.

    Pretty sure a few % of that will go Biden's way now.

    More significant is the lower turnout among African Americans in 2016 than 2012 - something that undoubtedly helped Trump in states he won by a very tight margin.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Drutt said:

    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
    How on earth does one go about getting classified docs from a mole in London these days and still cover the source? Everywhere in zone 1 is under CCTV, your phone isn't secure (esp Huawei), and presumably nor is your landline. Surely the trick is to leave really slim pickings for GCHQ and only a single meeting so 5 don't have much to go on.

    Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
    Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
    Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
    Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
    Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.

    How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
    Do you ever think you might need to get out more? :wink:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden...
    I’m far from convinced you wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
    Particularly if Boris put in a kind word.

    In any event, you are (a) not American, and (b) a conservative. I think President Harris can perhaps succeed without your vote.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    Which is exactly the message he would employ against Warren with her tax rises and threats to end private health insurance etc
    The ending of private health insurance is a bad move by Dems. Too far for the US I think, even if I agree with it in principle. Biden has been careful to talk about reforming Obamacare. This is a vote winner against Trump. Totally public option will give him a massive 'Get out of jail' card as millions will be worried about their private insurance and the staggering cost to the deficit.
    Yes, Warren's message will turn off the Independents Biden could win
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Beata Szydlo (Poland, Law and Justice) rejected again tonight as Chair of Employment committee at EU Parliament: 34 to 19 votes with 2 abstentions.

    It is the only Committee without Chair, after 2 attempts.

    The Chairs elected in other committes are as follow:

    Foreign Affairs: David McAllister (Germany, CDU) unopposed

    Agriculture and Rural Development: Norbert Lins (Germany, CDU) defeats Maxette Pirbakas (France, RN) 36 to 11

    Budgets: Johan Van Overtveldt (Belgium, NVA) unopposed

    Culture and Education: Sabine Verheyen (Germany, CDU) unopposed

    Development: Tomas Tobé (Sweden, Moderates) unopposed

    Economic and Monetary Affairs: Roberto Gualtieri (Italy, PD) unopposed

    Employment and Social Affairs: post-poned

    Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: Pascal Canfin (France, LREM) unopposed

    Internal Market and Consumer Protection: Petra De Sutte (Belgium, Greens) unopposed

    International Trade: Bernd Lange (Germany, SPD) unopposed

    Industry, Research and Energy: Adina-Ioana Vălean (Romania, National Liberal Party) unopposed

    Legal Affairs: Lucy Nethsingha (UK, LibDems) defeats Gilles Lebreton (France, RN) 15 to 6 votes

    Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: Juan F López Aguilar (Spain, PSOE) unopposed

    Regional Development: Younous Omarjee (France, La France Insoumise) unopposed

    Transport and Tourism: Karima Delli (France, Greens) unopposed

    Constitutional Affairs: Antonio Tajani (Italy, Forza Italia) unopposed

    Fisheries: Chris Davies (UK, Libdems) unopposed

    Petitions: Dolors Montserrat (Spain, PP) unopposed

    Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: Evelyn Regner (Austria, SDP) unopposed

    Budgetary Control:Isabel García Muñoz (Spain, PSOE) unopposed

    Human Rights (Subcommittee): Marie Arena (Belgium, Parti Socialiste)

    Security and Defence (Subcommittee): Nathalie Loiseau (France, LREM)


  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Do you support use of the word "racist" to describe people who are, say, anti-Islam, even though Islam clearly isn't a race and there are plenty of white Muslims in places like Bosnia?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    AndyJS said:

    Y0kel said:

    The Democrats are in danger of doing exactly what a lot parties do when they start letting ideologues get too much traction via publicity, they don't aim to win, they aim for purity. The Democratic party establishment has yet to take a hand in primary season but it will at some point and it will think of winning first.

    The basic maths are against Trump but the Democrats need to avoid tearing themselves to bits and critically need to avoid 3rd party runs. Trumps base is solid but that solid base isn't enough to see him home, the Democrats have the winning of the swing voters alright but the people that will take them over the top are more frothy and a 3rd party run from either side will hurt them plenty.

    On another US note, a story is doing the rounds that Kim Darroch may have been passing on classified info to a US media outlet. The story does appear to have some cred.

    Wokeness is all about purity, and expelling people who fail to be pure.
    Would never happen on the Right. Oh...

    https://leave.eu/deselect-these-shameful-tory-mps/
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093

    Drutt said:

    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
    How on earth does one go about getting classified docs from a mole in London these days and still cover the source? Everywhere in zone 1 is under CCTV, your phone isn't secure (esp Huawei), and presumably nor is your landline. Surely the trick is to leave really slim pickings for GCHQ and only a single meeting so 5 don't have much to go on.

    Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
    Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
    Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
    Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
    Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.

    How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
    Do you ever think you might need to get out more? :wink:
    Can't go out too often, man. Eyes everywhere...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    On topic: It seems to me that the two big factors which will determine whether Trump gets a second term are:

    1. Will the Dems be able to resist the temptation of assuming that the whole electorate is as horrified by Trump as they are?

    2. Will Trump manage to avoid tipping the US economy into a significant slowdown by his economically illiterate obsession with starting trade wars?

    I think the answer to both questions will probably be 'No', which makes it hard to call.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pretty sure if they nominate Warren we are looking at Trump let lose on a 2nd term. We are doomed.

    The good news is I should be able to make some small money with that race :)
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Based on your logic if Corbyn is called a racist, then Trump must also be called a racist and according to you if you vote for Trump you are a racist so logically if you vote for Corbyn you are also a racist.

    Sounds about right.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    AndyJS said:

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Do you support use of the word "racist" to describe people who are, say, anti-Islam, even though Islam clearly isn't a race and there are plenty of white Muslims in places like Bosnia?
    Definition Of Race According To The Equality Act 2010
    The Act is clear in its definition of race. Race means being part of a group of people who are identified by their nationality, citizenship, colour, national or ethnic origins.

    https://www.eoc.org.uk/race-discrimination/
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Y0kel said:

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Based on your logic if Corbyn is called a racist, then Trump must also be called a racist and according to you if you vote for Trump you are a racist so logically if you vote for Corbyn you are also a racist.

    Sounds about right.

    If you vote for either Trump or Corbyn you are undoubtedly relaxed about having a racist running your country.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Drutt said:

    I would have thought she was all in favour of law and order?
    How on earth does one go about getting classified docs from a mole in London these days and still cover the source? Everywhere in zone 1 is under CCTV, your phone isn't secure (esp Huawei), and presumably nor is your landline. Surely the trick is to leave really slim pickings for GCHQ and only a single meeting so 5 don't have much to go on.

    Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
    Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
    Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
    Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
    Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.

    How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
    Burner phones and cover stories - we were meeting to discuss this innocent X topic - are often used by insider dealers to try and cover their tracks. It does not work. See the recent case successfully prosecuted by the FCA (Google Fabiana Malek). (I should declare an interest as I was involved in that investigation.)

    What you have described up there can be tracked though it takes time and effort. And you forget that much of the effort will be directed at working out who accessed the document which will be trackable, as well as lots of other evidence which helps corroborate other pieces. Then there is the biggest risk of all for the leakers: the fact that the whole leak (from taking the document to publication) was not done by one person but by two and possibly more. So you find the weakest link or put pressure on one of the links. Once you have more than one person involved, they each have to trust the others not to let them down. They each have different agendas and they are all vulnerable to worrying that their trust may be misplaced and that maybe they need to be the one to get first mover advantage.

    Don't think for a moment that experienced investigators don't know and use that.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Do you support use of the word "racist" to describe people who are, say, anti-Islam, even though Islam clearly isn't a race and there are plenty of white Muslims in places like Bosnia?
    Definition Of Race According To The Equality Act 2010
    The Act is clear in its definition of race. Race means being part of a group of people who are identified by their nationality, citizenship, colour, national or ethnic origins.

    https://www.eoc.org.uk/race-discrimination/
    Doesn't include religion.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    On topic: It seems to me that the two big factors which will determine whether Trump gets a second term are:

    1. Will the Dems be able to resist the temptation of assuming that the whole electorate is as horrified by Trump as they are?

    2. Will Trump manage to avoid tipping the US economy into a significant slowdown by his economically illiterate obsession with starting trade wars?

    I think the answer to both questions will probably be 'No', which makes it hard to call.

    Interesting view. Funnily enough I think the answer to both questions is possibly 'Yes', which equally makes it hard to call.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden...
    I’m far from convinced you wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
    Particularly if Boris put in a kind word.

    In any event, you are (a) not American, and (b) a conservative. I think President Harris can perhaps succeed without your vote.
    Plenty of conservatives here are prime Biden-Clinton-Obama democrat voters indeed I think it's near enough the middle ground for the USA and probably the key swing voter.
    If the Democrats go woke, my betting bank could end up broke :D

    They ignore @AndyJS analysis at their peril..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Biden beats Trump by 9% but Harris beats Trump by only 1% (less than Hillary did in 2016).

    Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.

    It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee

    Who would you like to win the 2020 election? Personally, I would be glad if anybody beat Trump! Cannot be worse than him...
    I would vote for Trump over all the Democrats bar Biden...
    I’m far from convinced you wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
    Particularly if Boris put in a kind word.

    In any event, you are (a) not American, and (b) a conservative. I think President Harris can perhaps succeed without your vote.

    Not on that NBC polling, she is doing worse than Hillary against Trump
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited July 2019
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    ‪Anyone who calls Corbyn a racist, but not Trump, is a hypocrite who has no genuine interest in opposing racism, but is using it for political ends. And vice versa, of course.‬

    Do you support use of the word "racist" to describe people who are, say, anti-Islam, even though Islam clearly isn't a race and there are plenty of white Muslims in places like Bosnia?
    Definition Of Race According To The Equality Act 2010
    The Act is clear in its definition of race. Race means being part of a group of people who are identified by their nationality, citizenship, colour, national or ethnic origins.

    https://www.eoc.org.uk/race-discrimination/
    Doesn't include religion.
    Nor should it.

    Religion should be treated no more special than any other belief system.

    You wouldn't call it racist to attack fascists based on what they believe, so why not the religious based on what they believe?
This discussion has been closed.