Every single one of those three was born before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power.
Two of them were born during the Second World War.
That's how old they are.
Admittedly the fourth one is only slightly older than me, but...
It is an interesting contrast. We think of Corbyn as getting on a bit for a PM, but he’s a baby in US terms. And yet we used to do old PMs. Is it the need to be in Parliament and the fact that those who are going to make it to the top are going to do it younger, I wonder? Back in the day I guess it was usual for MPs to have had another career first, and be younger.
We haven't had too many PMs in their seventies. I think I'm right in saying there were three in the twentieth century - Salisbury, Chamberlain and Churchill. There were a few more in the nineteenth century, including Palmerston who was the only person to become PM for the first time when over 70.
Meanwhile, the USA have had three presidents only aged over 70 - Eisenhower, Reagan and Trump.
Changes in life expectancy over time surely imply that the age og 70 today is little different to being circa 60 back in the 1950s. When allowance is made for that , Corbyn is no older than Attlee and Macmillan - and a still a fair bit younger than Churchill and Chamberlain.
Has it occurred to you Justin that people living longer doesn't necessarily mean their metabolic rate has changed? It just means that common conditions that would have been fatal not that long ago - e.g. septicaemia, heart attacks, cancer - can now be cured.
While I appreciate there are many fit and active older people around now, that has always been true. Palmerston was perfectly mentally alert at 80 (Churchill was not, as it happens).
If you want to see what could be achieved by older people in former times, check out Patrick Curtis. Having forged a glittering career as Master of the Irish College in Spain, at the age of seventy he turned secret agent and was Wellington's most important spy in the Peninsular War. Aged 79 he became Archbishop of Armagh and was still very much in charge when he died of cholera aged 92.
But you also had elderly people - like Churchill, or Portland, to stick with the Napoleonic era - who just carried because they were too stubborn to admit they were past it.
Basically, your argument is hokum. Once people start getting beyond sixty their faculties are just as likely to fail as they ever were. The thing is they are now very much more likely to make it to sixty.
Latest research suggests it is all about how fast you walk.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
Think about this.....She can't be prosecuted in the US and if she returns to the UK the Diplomatic Immunity kicks in, so she's still safe. Lucky girl.
The problem here is the attitude of the US Government. In a similar case in 1997 Georgia waived the immunity of a diplomat who got drunk and fatally injured a New Yorker in a car crash. Georgia acted honorably, the US did not.
Is this like how starting impeachment proceedings plays right into Trump's hands too?
That's a different thing. I laughed at the clip - her comedy timing is really good - but I think they're right, and it has the same tone that Hillary had that upsets people on the other side.
A common theme among conservatives is that they think liberals are looking down at them. And they're not wrong - we are, religious people are suckers and this "marriage is between a man and a woman" line is small-minded and dumb.
But if you're running against a president who's a genuine existential threat in a very religious country, you probably shouldn't be rubbing it in their faces like this. She got a laugh at the expense of people who mostly weren't going to vote for her anyway, but some of them were, and now they're not.
The Scottish Government produced a Brexit Vulnerability Map this week. A posh residential datazone (now they have knocked down the school that was featured in Waterloo Road) near me with no industry is rated in the top 10% most vulnerable, whereas a nearby one with one of the biggest container ports in Scotland is in the 20% to 30% most vulnerable range. A pointless exercise?
Who knows I am in one of the least vulnerable areas, most expensive local area where the people least likely to be affected are so may well be accurate
Is this like how starting impeachment proceedings plays right into Trump's hands too?
If Trumpton strolled over to the White House front lawn, stripped naked, and did a giant wet fart live on CNN, several PBers would contend that the act played into his hands.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Why wouldn’t trump appeal to the rust belt? Just like why wouldn’t brexit appeal to the parts of U.K. political establishment in London done nothing for for decades. If your in place where nothing has got better for 8 years surely you would be tempted by something fresh and different, especially a nationalist talking about being best jobs president in history?
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
Is this like how starting impeachment proceedings plays right into Trump's hands too?
If Trumpton strolled over to the White House front lawn, stripped naked, and did a giant wet fart live on CNN, several PBers would contend that the act played into his hands.
Of course it would. If he’s out there doing that he wouldn’t be in there releasing ISIS terrorists would he?
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
If it fails because a significant number of Tories vote against it, what then?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this like how starting impeachment proceedings plays right into Trump's hands too?
That's a different thing. I laughed at the clip - her comedy timing is really good - but I think they're right, and it has the same tone that Hillary had that upsets people on the other side.
A common theme among conservatives is that they think liberals are looking down at them. And they're not wrong - we are, religious people are suckers and this "marriage is between a man and a woman" line is small-minded and dumb.
But if you're running against a president who's a genuine existential threat in a very religious country, you probably shouldn't be rubbing it in their faces like this. She got a laugh at the expense of people who mostly weren't going to vote for her anyway, but some of them were, and now they're not.
I 'm not sure. I've never liked the old advertising slogan 'Get down on all fours and see it from the clients point of view'.
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
That focuses on just approval, ignoring disapproval which is rather worse for Trump. Net approval takes into account both, so let's focus on that, using the 538 averages of all polls.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point. 2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there. 3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
Except US Preaidential elections are won by candidates American voters want to vote for not candidates whose voters are mainly voting against the incumbent president.
They flipping well shouldn't! I think they should arrange to deliver them over to Assad. Though how they would do that I admit I have no idea.
Better still, deliver them to Trump by cruise ship. Or drop them off just short of the US border in Mexico so they can demonstrate how easy it is to overcome his wall.
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
I know the DUP are not averse to playing games, but given their actions at present seem the same as they have been all along, I'd think it a reasonably safe assumption he means it.
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
If it fails because a significant number of Tories vote against it, what then?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this all part of the game plan?
And with the DUP thinking he tried to throw them under the bus to boot.
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The original draft in the Express set out a reasoned lengthy argument explaining to their readers the fact that leads in polls could substantively vary on account of house effects arising from a number of different technicalities and so a 5 point (sic, in fact a 6 point) lead with ComRes in this case might be capable of being described in much the same terms as the 15 point lead days earlier from Opinium given that both polls also showed record leads and polling highs for the Conservatives since Johnson took over.
However, long sentences (as above) are banned at the Express, so the sub-editor tried summing it all up in five words, although he still FORGOT TO USE ANY CAPITALS.
They flipping well shouldn't! I think they should arrange to deliver them over to Assad. Though how they would do that I admit I have no idea.
Nah, blow them up. Who would notice one more missile in all this chaos.
No due process then? No checking to see whether these humans are guilty of anything more than being in the wrong place and the wrong time, and getting picked up by an armed group who were understandably suspicious and locked them up just to be on the safe side. Imagine that was you. Some nutters nearby were killing people, and you just kept your head down hoping not to be next. Then another lot of people throw you in the clink just for being there, and now some arsehole five thousand miles away thinks you should be incinerated. No trial, not plea, no investigation. Just death from out of a black sky.
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
If it fails because a significant number of Tories vote against it, what then?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this all part of the game plan?
What else can he do ?
There's no point in electing Conservative MPs if they're going to vote against Brexit.
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
So all the stuff about just wanting to avoid No Deal is bullshit after all? They just want to overturn the vote.
point of order, overturning the vote is one way of avoiding no deal.
Delaying, not avoiding.
Not without a positive decision. We'd be back in a sensible situation where if people wanted no deal, they'd have to win the argument for it, instead of just waiting in a bunker
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
If it fails because a significant number of Tories vote against it, what then?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this all part of the game plan?
What else can he do ?
There's no point in electing Conservative MPs if they're going to vote against Brexit.
Interesting that the point of the Conservative Party seems to have become so attenuated.
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
I'm content to believe any of these numbers, they seem plausible. I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts.
If a deal comes to the Commons MPs must put in extra safeguards to make sure there’s enough time to scrutinize this and not allow someone to scupper the WAIB .
Passing the deal means the Benn Act is nullified but until the WAIB has gone through then the UK could still fall out on no deal .
The WAIB is likely to cause more Tory infighting as it deals with the money and ECJ oversight.
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
If it fails because a significant number of Tories vote against it, what then?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this all part of the game plan?
What else can he do ?
There's no point in electing Conservative MPs if they're going to vote against Brexit.
Interesting that the point of the Conservative Party seems to have become so attenuated.
If a deal comes to the Commons MPs must put in extra safeguards to make sure there’s enough time to scrutinize this and not allow someone to scupper the WAIB .
Passing the deal means the Benn Act is nullified but until the WAIB has gone through then the UK could still fall out on no deal .
The WAIB is likely to cause more Tory infighting as it deals with the money and ECJ oversight.
Well at least theres one person optimistic it will even get to that point.
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
I'm content to believe any of these numbers, they seem plausible. I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts.
Well, for one thing, in under three weeks, we'll have either left the EU or extended.
Do you really not think that will have any effect?
I see the Tories now want to disenfranchise loads of voters by forcing them to have a photo ID.
And of course it’s not their core demographic that’s likely to be effected . More despicable antics from the party which continues to sink deeper into the cesspit .
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
I'm content to believe any of these numbers, they seem plausible. I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts.
Well, for one thing, in under three weeks, we'll have either left the EU or extended.
Do you really not think that will have any effect?
Of course I think it will have an effect, never said it wouldnt. It's a major part of why I think the polls in a campaign will be different to now.
I find the levels of support indicated right now plausible, but think that support is soft as hell so its meaningless.
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
I'm content to believe any of these numbers, they seem plausible. I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts.
Well, for one thing, in under three weeks, we'll have either left the EU or extended.
Do you really not think that will have any effect?
Of course I do, never said it wouldnt. It's a major part of why I think the polls in a campaign will be different to now.
If that's what you think, then "I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts" was a bloody funny way of expressing it!
Does anyone take pre campaign polling seriously any more?
“A thumping five point lead”!!
The current average Tory lead is ten points.
Or 8, if you believe Britain Elects. Or if you take the most recent polls of the five pollsters who have reported in the last three weeks, the mean is 8 and the median is 6.
I'm content to believe any of these numbers, they seem plausible. I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts.
Well, for one thing, in under three weeks, we'll have either left the EU or extended.
Do you really not think that will have any effect?
Of course I do, never said it wouldnt. It's a major part of why I think the polls in a campaign will be different to now.
If that's what you think, then "I just dont believe that they will not change a great deal once a campaign starts" was a bloody funny way of expressing it!
Oddly phrased I grant you, but the double negative still works out to my intended point. I do not believe it will not change a lot, ergo I believe it will. Its 0023, and I'm going to bed, careful phrasing would be a bonus
I see the Tories now want to disenfranchise loads of voters by forcing them to have a photo ID.
And of course it’s not their core demographic that’s likely to be effected . More despicable antics from the party which continues to sink deeper into the cesspit .
I would suggest taking a look at the State election results today in Louisiana including the "jungle primary" for Governor before writing off Donald Trump.From what I am hearing based on early results the Democrats are not doing too well.
I don't think anyone is writing Trump off. He's the incumbent President. And incumbents tend to be reelected.
But we oughtn't to ignore his challenges too.
The rust belt is probably back in recession. And he needs to win the rust belt if he's going to be reelected.
His unfavourable numbers are terrible.
And Hillary won't be his opponent next year.
Betfair currently has him at about 2.5 to win in 2020. Given the risk of health problems or impeachment, that looks about right.
That focuses on just approval, ignoring disapproval which is rather worse for Trump. Net approval takes into account both, so let's focus on that, using the 538 averages of all polls.
1. Trump's current net (dis)approval rating of -11.6 is significantly worse than any of the 9 presidents who got re-elected at a similar point before their re-election, including Obama who was the next closest of those 9 at this point. 2. Trump's current net rating is also worse than 2 of the 3 presidents who failed to get re-elected, all of whom lost heavily, so no comfort for him there. 3. Trump's net rating is also much the least volatile of any president, which means that people have very fixed views of him and are less likely to change their minds. The opportunity for him to turnaround his dismal rating is therefore also less. i.e. he may have a loyal minority base, but the majority of people gave up on him at the start of his presidency and have remained fixed in their utter contempt for him since. He's basically Marmite, and most don't like his version of Marmite.
As for Obama, this point in his presidency with a net rating of -6.7 just happened to be the abolute nadir in his net approval rating, after a steady decline to that point, followed by a steady recovery afterwards.
Except US Preaidential elections are won by candidates American voters want to vote for not candidates whose voters are mainly voting against the incumbent president.
'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right' yet again it seems almost a century since the last time.
It seems by insisting on the backstop and an Irish sea border rather than agreeing to a technical solution to avoid a hard border with the Republic the EU have risked the Good Friday Agreement with loyalist paramilitaries led by the UVF and UDA threatening protests and civil disorder rather than any economic union with the Republic
Unless there is something I don't know about that 1/2 looks like free money.
It is free money. Newbury will be blue.
Unless Benyon changed his mind and decided to stand again as an independent. I've no idea whether this is remotely likely, but I suppose it's not impossible that he might, and that if so he might win.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
How is latest polling in key state of Florida?
Trump leads Warren 50.1% to 49.9% in the latest Florida poll
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
How is latest polling in key state of Florida?
Trump leads Warren 50.1% to 49.9% in the latest Florida poll
Um, isn't that bollocks? An "unincorporated association" is just lawyer-speak for "a bunch of people" (genuinely: that's what "unincorporated" means). If it were a sole trader or an unlimited partnership, then yes, but otherwise no. However, I think the officers (treasurer? chairman?) would be personally liable, yes?
Is there a lawyer in the house who can answer this? Preferably without giving me two options yes or no, and then shrugging and charging me £100 per hour...
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
Hillary got more votes than Trump right across America.
Got more votes than Obama in the 08 primary as well. For all her manifest problems as a candidate she has been badly served in both campaigns by her strategists.
Is "assuming you can find one" Warren's 47% or deplorable a moment. My guess is no but stuff like that could turn off potential Democrat voters at the expense of making dead cert Dems coo on twitter a little more.
Good to see Scotland Vs Japan going ahead. The inflexibility over the final group matches was still farcical though - it'll need a thorough review post tournament, Italy should have had a chance at probable glorious failure Vs the All Blacks, England Vs France was only good fortune that it didn't matter. Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
Um, isn't that bollocks? An "unincorporated association" is just lawyer-speak for "a bunch of people" (genuinely: that's what "unincorporated" means). If it were a sole trader or an unlimited partnership, then yes, but otherwise no. However, I think the officers (treasurer? chairman?) would be personally liable, yes?
Is there a lawyer in the house who can answer this? Preferably without giving me two options yes or no, and then shrugging and charging me £100 per hour...
You can get legal advice for £100 an hour? Do you live in the 1980s?
I think you are right - he thinks it is a partnership, and it isn't. Officers and committee might be in trouble. Contracts with the party will typically be with the Chairman as agent for the o & c.
Is "assuming you can find one" Warren's 47% or deplorable a moment. My guess is no but stuff like that could turn off potential Democrat voters at the expense of making dead cert Dems coo on twitter a little more.
I wouldn't put it that strongly but she needs to watch herself.
I see the Tories now want to disenfranchise loads of voters by forcing them to have a photo ID.
And of course it’s not their core demographic that’s likely to be effected . More despicable antics from the party which continues to sink deeper into the cesspit .
You sound worried that Labour's core demographic of the vote cheat will be disenfranchised.....how despicable.
I'm starting to think Johnson intends to pivot to a second referendum. It was May's obvious way out at the beginning of the year, but she didn't have the political capital.
One of the most mystifying aspects of May's Premiership was her hostility to the notion of a second referendum. Apparently the suggestion was one of the few things that would make her angry.
Anybody know why? It always seemed to me one of the less disastrous outcomes, amogst the many.
She was probably of the view the first one has to enacted before going onto another.
As anyone who has an inch of democracy in them has to believe. You can't say a result will be implemented and then say it isn't enough after the side you dislike wins. Democracy requires being free and fair.
They have had 40 months to deliver the referendum result. It hasn't happened and maybe can’t what do you suggest. People go on about parliament telling us what they don’t want but what do people want? Don’t just say leave tell us how it can be done without fucking the UK
Parliament have had plenty of opportunities to deliver Brexit but have not done so because MPs are more interested in their own.petty politicking. There are many forms of Brexit that are deliverable. The problem is not Brexit, it is the scumbag MPs on all sides.
That is too harsh on the MPs - the problem really stems from the fact the we had a referendum in which the narrowly winning option was not defined.
In those circumstances everyone was quite entitled to lobby and vote for the form of Brexit they preferred. There was no obligation on Labour or the No Dealers or EFTA fans to accept the Brexit Mrs May was offering. They could all argue that their preferred Brexit was just as legitimate.
If Brexit had been defined before the vote there would have been a clear obligation on Parliament to deliver that version. Tactically the leave campaigns maximised their chances of victory by pretending all Brexit options were on the table and have subsequently paid the price for doing that
This is garbage. The one thing that was defined was that we should leave. It is hilarious that the Remainers claim that the problem is that Leave was not defined and in the next breath that people didn't vote for No Deal as if they can define what people voted for. They are just looking for excuses to fail to deliver what was voted for.
Good to see Scotland Vs Japan going ahead. The inflexibility over the final group matches was still farcical though - it'll need a thorough review post tournament, Italy should have had a chance at probable glorious failure Vs the All Blacks, England Vs France was only good fortune that it didn't matter. Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
Good to see Scotland Vs Japan going ahead. The inflexibility over the final group matches was still farcical though - it'll need a thorough review post tournament, Italy should have had a chance at probable glorious failure Vs the All Blacks, England Vs France was only good fortune that it didn't matter. Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
The artificiality of the Kipchoge run didn't sit well with me. I would hope either he breaks 2 hours in a legitimate race or someone else wins SPOTY.
Good to see Scotland Vs Japan going ahead. The inflexibility over the final group matches was still farcical though - it'll need a thorough review post tournament, Italy should have had a chance at probable glorious failure Vs the All Blacks, England Vs France was only good fortune that it didn't matter. Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
Good to see Scotland Vs Japan going ahead. The inflexibility over the final group matches was still farcical though - it'll need a thorough review post tournament, Italy should have had a chance at probable glorious failure Vs the All Blacks, England Vs France was only good fortune that it didn't matter. Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
The artificiality of the Kipchoge run didn't sit well with me. I would hope either he breaks 2 hours in a legitimate race or someone else wins SPOTY.
He still did run the time unaided though, and his ‘official’ record is 2.01’39”, which only 1.4% slower than this time. It’s only a matter of time until it goes officially - I suspect the difficulty will be getting sufficient numbers of pacemakers close to the end, given that they would all have to start the race together.
I think you're arguing for what you (and I) would like. We'd both like a free trade, centrist Democrat, who believed in NATO and the Western Alliance.
We'd like someone like Klobachar or Buttigieg.
But the issue with the US last time around was not really that Trump won over Democrats in the Mid-West. The issue was that Democrats didn't come out to vote.
Take Wisconsin. President Trump unexpected won it.
But he got fewer votes than Romney! Think about that for a second. Romney is derided by many on here as a terrible candidate. But he got more votes than Trump in Wisconsin, despite the US having actually grown its voting age population meaningfully between 2012 and 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a truly appalling candidate. And what the Democratic candidate needs to do is to persuade their supporters to come out and vote. So maybe a bit of appeal to the base matters.
Abso-friggin-lutely.
People on here actually need to understand what happened in 2016 before they start making pronouncements about 2020.
Dem voters stayed home. Especially Black Dem voters. A decent chunk of potential Republican voters voted 3rd party.
Impeaching Trump is a popular idea.
Trump won the rust belt on tiny increases in the Republican vote and giant decreases in the Dem vote.
A non Trump candidate would have annihilated Clinton in the rust belt as the same Dem voters staying home effect would have happened but 3rd party voters would have voted for the generic Republican.
Trump got more votes than Romney in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
How is latest polling in key state of Florida?
Trump leads Warren 50.1% to 49.9% in the latest Florida poll
Comments
The problem here is the attitude of the US Government. In a similar case in 1997 Georgia waived the immunity of a diplomat who got drunk and fatally injured a New Yorker in a car crash. Georgia acted honorably, the US did not.
That's all there is to it.
A common theme among conservatives is that they think liberals are looking down at them. And they're not wrong - we are, religious people are suckers and this "marriage is between a man and a woman" line is small-minded and dumb.
But if you're running against a president who's a genuine existential threat in a very religious country, you probably shouldn't be rubbing it in their faces like this. She got a laugh at the expense of people who mostly weren't going to vote for her anyway, but some of them were, and now they're not.
Is Bojo pursuing the finalisation of a deal he knows the DUP will reject (and therefore will fail on Super Saturday) but would give him a very clear campaigning message? (Vote for me and this deal will get approved by Parliament the following week).
Or is Dodds just briefing objections to an italian journo to keep negotiators on their toes until the final whistle?
Does Johnson go into an election having amputated both wings of his party, expelled perhaps 40-50 MPs, and having broken his promise to leave on 31 October, with the Brexit Party yelling "Traitor!" in his ear?
Is this all part of the game plan?
This isn't something to argue about. Let's run the numbers and both learn something.
However, long sentences (as above) are banned at the Express, so the sub-editor tried summing it all up in five words, although he still FORGOT TO USE ANY CAPITALS.
Imagine that was you. Some nutters nearby were killing people, and you just kept your head down hoping not to be next. Then another lot of people throw you in the clink just for being there, and now some arsehole five thousand miles away thinks you should be incinerated. No trial, not plea, no investigation. Just death from out of a black sky.
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1183137270158811140?s=21
There's no point in electing Conservative MPs if they're going to vote against Brexit.
Passing the deal means the Benn Act is nullified but until the WAIB has gone through then the UK could still fall out on no deal .
The WAIB is likely to cause more Tory infighting as it deals with the money and ECJ oversight.
Do you really not think that will have any effect?
And of course it’s not their core demographic that’s likely to be effected . More despicable antics from the party which continues to sink deeper into the cesspit .
I find the levels of support indicated right now plausible, but think that support is soft as hell so its meaningless.
No chance
It seems by insisting on the backstop and an Irish sea border rather than agreeing to a technical solution to avoid a hard border with the Republic the EU have risked the Good Friday Agreement with loyalist paramilitaries led by the UVF and UDA threatening protests and civil disorder rather than any economic union with the Republic
https://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1183166846184443904?s=20
Is there a lawyer in the house who can answer this? Preferably without giving me two options yes or no, and then shrugging and charging me £100 per hour...
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaemyKlobaechar/comments/dh3j82/british_betting_boffin_backs_baemy/
My guess is no but stuff like that could turn off potential Democrat voters at the expense of making dead cert Dems coo on twitter a little more.
Also Kipchoge should win overseas SPOTY, the most consequential run today since the 4 minute mile.
I think you are right - he thinks it is a partnership, and it isn't. Officers and committee might be in trouble. Contracts with the party will typically be with the Chairman as agent for the o & c.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/12/police-called-hong-kong-china-tensions-spread-uk-universities/