Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Mandate

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts

    Ladbroke just let me put £50 on 50 to 1 (boosted to 60 to 1).
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    Most of your assumptions are absurd. And you clearly have not read all my threads as I have a far more 50:50 view of EU membership than you seem to assume. At any event, remain is no longer an option.

    Whether Brexit will bring what Brexiteers desired and voted for is another matter. We shall see.

    Goodnight.
    Cretin
    If you want to avoid the ban hammer, don't call other posters cretins.
    I thought Ban Hammer was the guy who wrote the music for Miami Vice....
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,369
    edited December 2019
    Alistair said:

    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.

    I'm generally on your side of this argument but I guess the case for Trump comes from letting the detail slide and thinking about three big, important generalizations:
    1) The incumbent usually wins
    2) Especially if the economy is strong
    3) If there's a way to bollocks this thing up, the Democrats will find it
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited December 2019

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    However having liberal Conservative politicians like Gove and Johnson front Brexit reassured me.

    Bloody hell. If you consider Gove a liberal, I hope I never meet someone you consider a reactionary autocrat.
    What's Gove done that is illiberal? His reforms as Justice secretary were very liberalising, as have been his reforms when he was at DEFRA.

    I know you dislike his education reforms but they were not illiberal.
    His education reforms were quite bizarre.

    He changed the system for GSCEs so it went from 1-7 (with 7 being the highest) - was he aware that Standard Grade's (Scotland's equivalent to GSCEs) went from 1-7 (with 7 being the lowest). Whats' the Story (morning glory) with that???
    1-9, to be accurate.
    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.
    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremist British nationalists. When she claimed to be pro-Scotland she was widely believed, even by people who did not vote for her party. It wasn’t just an act. The loss of Davidson, and the subsequent weakening of other pro-Scotland Tories, puts the extremists in a stronger position within the party. That is one of the principle weaknesses of the Union: the main Unionist party is absolutely riddled with folk that wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    Alistair said:

    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.

    I'm generally on your side of this argument but I guess the case for Trump comes from letting the detail slide and thinking about three big, important generalizations:
    1) The incumbent usually wins
    2) Especially if the economy is strong
    3) If there's a way to bollocks this thing up, the Democrats will find it
    Re 1, I think there's a little bit of recency bias here. Now, sure, the last three Presidents have served the full two terms - Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama - but before then the record is more mixed:

    - Bush Sr, one term
    - Reagan, two terms
    - Carter, one term
    - Ford, half a term
    - Nixon, one and a bit terms
    - Johnson, one and a bit terms
    - JFK, somewhat less than a term

    Of the previous seven Presidents, only one managed "two complete terms" between them.

    Trump's issue is that he has really high unfavourables. In 2016, that didn't matter because Ms Clinton had equally high unfavourables. Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar simply don't have those negatives. Even Warren - who's probably the least popular of the Dems - isn't that unpopular.
  • Options

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    However having liberal Conservative politicians like Gove and Johnson front Brexit reassured me.

    Bloody hell. If you consider Gove a liberal, I hope I never meet someone you consider a reactionary autocrat.
    What's Gove done that is illiberal? His reforms as Justice secretary were very liberalising, as have been his reforms when he was at DEFRA.

    I know you dislike his education reforms but they were not illiberal.
    His education reforms were quite bizarre.

    He changed the system for GSCEs so it went from 1-7 (with 7 being the highest) - was he aware that Standard Grade's (Scotland's equivalent to GSCEs) went from 1-7 (with 7 being the lowest). Whats' the Story (morning glory) with that???
    1-9, to be accurate.
    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.
    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremist British nationalists. When she claimed to be pro-Scotland she was widely believed, even by people who did not vote for her party. It wasn’t just an act. The loss of Davidson, and the subsequent weakening of other pro-Scotland Tories, puts the extremists in a stronger position within the party. That is one of the principle weaknesses of the Union: the main Unionist party is absolutely riddled with folk that wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
    Absolutely barking.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    However having liberal Conservative politicians like Gove and Johnson front Brexit reassured me.

    Bloody hell. If you consider Gove a liberal, I hope I never meet someone you consider a reactionary autocrat.
    What's Gove done that is illiberal? His reforms as Justice secretary were very liberalising, as have been his reforms when he was at DEFRA.

    I know you dislike his education reforms but they were not illiberal.
    His education reforms were quite bizarre.

    He changed the system for GSCEs so it went from 1-7 (with 7 being the highest) - was he aware that Standard Grade's (Scotland's equivalent to GSCEs) went from 1-7 (with 7 being the lowest). Whats' the Story (morning glory) with that???
    1-9, to be accurate.
    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.
    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremist British nationalists. When she claimed to be pro-Scotland she was widely believed, even by people who did not vote for her party. It wasn’t just an act. The loss of Davidson, and the subsequent weakening of other pro-Scotland Tories, puts the extremists in a stronger position within the party. That is one of the principle weaknesses of the Union: the main Unionist party is absolutely riddled with folk that wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
    who's this "we" - you.ve left Scotland
  • Options

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    However having liberal Conservative politicians like Gove and Johnson front Brexit reassured me.

    Bloody hell. If you consider Gove a liberal, I hope I never meet someone you consider a reactionary autocrat.
    What's Gove done that is illiberal? His reforms as Justice secretary were very liberalising, as have been his reforms when he was at DEFRA.

    I know you dislike his education reforms but they were not illiberal.
    His education reforms were quite bizarre.

    He changed the system for GSCEs so it went from 1-7 (with 7 being the highest) - was he aware that Standard Grade's (Scotland's equivalent to GSCEs) went from 1-7 (with 7 being the lowest). Whats' the Story (morning glory) with that???
    1-9, to be accurate.
    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.
    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremist British nationalists. When she claimed to be pro-Scotland she was widely believed, even by people who did not vote for her party. It wasn’t just an act. The loss of Davidson, and the subsequent weakening of other pro-Scotland Tories, puts the extremists in a stronger position within the party. That is one of the principle weaknesses of the Union: the main Unionist party is absolutely riddled with folk that wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
    Absolutely barking.
    Thank you for your insightful response. Obviously, the only explanation for my opposition to British nationalism is that I am barking mad. I will strive to be more obedient and obsequious in the future. I love Big Brother.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means? It was, I think - and I can't be bothered to look up the details - a term coined by well-meaning 19th century Frenchmen - literallly 'Christian' - to remind ius that the educationally sub-normal were people too.

    Interestingly also, did you know there is a specific and meadurable hierarchy of the educationally sub-normal. I think it is imbecile, idiot, moron, with imbecile being the most, er, imbecilic. Moron is definitely the least stupid. Again, i can't be bothered to look up the details, largely because I am drunk.
    "Cretin" is a form of learning disability specific to hypothyroidism, rather like "Mongol" for Downs Syndrome. Both terms are obviously considered offensive nowadays, as indeed is the archaic taxonomy of Idiot/Moron/Imbecile etc.

    Every generation or so there is a new euphemism for adult learning disability to try to break the stigma, but they also seem to enter popular usage as insults. Sadly the stigma is too strong.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.

    I'm generally on your side of this argument but I guess the case for Trump comes from letting the detail slide and thinking about three big, important generalizations:
    1) The incumbent usually wins
    2) Especially if the economy is strong
    3) If there's a way to bollocks this thing up, the Democrats will find it
    Re 1, I think there's a little bit of recency bias here. Now, sure, the last three Presidents have served the full two terms - Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama - but before then the record is more mixed:

    - Bush Sr, one term
    - Reagan, two terms
    - Carter, one term
    - Ford, half a term
    - Nixon, one and a bit terms
    - Johnson, one and a bit terms
    - JFK, somewhat less than a term

    Of the previous seven Presidents, only one managed "two complete terms" between them.

    Trump's issue is that he has really high unfavourables. In 2016, that didn't matter because Ms Clinton had equally high unfavourables. Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar simply don't have those negatives. Even Warren - who's probably the least popular of the Dems - isn't that unpopular.
    I also don't see how the Dems miss Wisconsin and Michigan this time. Their spend in those states will dwarf what they spent last time. In 2020 they won't struggle with the high command having a token effort, "in case people think they might be in play".
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.

    I'm generally on your side of this argument but I guess the case for Trump comes from letting the detail slide and thinking about three big, important generalizations:
    1) The incumbent usually wins
    2) Especially if the economy is strong
    3) If there's a way to bollocks this thing up, the Democrats will find it
    Re 1, I think there's a little bit of recency bias here. Now, sure, the last three Presidents have served the full two terms - Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama - but before then the record is more mixed:

    - Bush Sr, one term
    - Reagan, two terms
    - Carter, one term
    - Ford, half a term
    - Nixon, one and a bit terms
    - Johnson, one and a bit terms
    - JFK, somewhat less than a term

    Of the previous seven Presidents, only one managed "two complete terms" between them.

    Trump's issue is that he has really high unfavourables. In 2016, that didn't matter because Ms Clinton had equally high unfavourables. Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar simply don't have those negatives. Even Warren - who's probably the least popular of the Dems - isn't that unpopular.
    I think that there will be a better Dem turnout than 2016, but Trump has that huge incumbency factor. Apart from Sanders, who is too old and left wing, pretty much any Dem is an even match. Evens seems about right to me.

    After the chaotic Trump regime, there may well be a desire for someone normal. This is the advantage of Buttigeig and Klobuchar. I like Warren, but she does get too bogged down in detail, and cannot see much in Biden.
  • Options

    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.

    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremist British nationalists. When she claimed to be pro-Scotland she was widely believed, even by people who did not vote for her party. It wasn’t just an act. The loss of Davidson, and the subsequent weakening of other pro-Scotland Tories, puts the extremists in a stronger position within the party. That is one of the principle weaknesses of the Union: the main Unionist party is absolutely riddled with folk that wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
    who's this "we" - you.ve left Scotland
    Yes, I realise that it is a terrific PB tradition to analyse the messenger rather than the message, but would it be too much to ask that you instead address the substantive point:

    About 10% of the population (if you believe the polls, and I do) want to abolish devolution.

    I contend that a significant number of these people (eg JBriskinindyref2) want to go even further and start fully integrating all aspects of state administration.

    I further contend that these people, who I describe as extremists, are in fact a big threat to the Union.

    Now, I’m sure there must be a counter-argument, so please feel free to posit it. Or, if it gives you a warm feeling, just be rude about the status of my mental health or residency.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,617

    My bad. I've always disliked disharmony between Scottish and English systems (law, education, health etc).

    Hopefully, once the (competent LOL) SNP are destroyed this disharmony can be extinguished in earnest.

    And there you have it. Some Unionists, the extremists, have never reconciled themselves with devolution. Their objective is not just to obliterate the legislative devolution of 1999, but even the separate state administration of most key functions (justice and penal systems, education, health, transport, culture, planning, industry, agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc) which pre-existed it.

    Obliterate Holyrood.
    Obliterate the SNP.
    Obliterate Scotland as a distinct nation.

    Their agenda is clear. They represent only about 10% of the population, but they are more common among some groups, eg the Conservative Party.

    Ruth Davidson was not one of these extremihat wish Scotland ill.

    Scots are not daft. We realise when some folk hate us.
    who's this "we" - you.ve left Scotland
    Yes, I realise that it is a terrific PB tradition to analyse the messenger rather than the message, but would it be too much to ask that you instead address the substantive point:

    About 10% of the population (if you believe the polls, and I do) want to abolish devolution.

    I contend that a significant number of these people (eg JBriskinindyref2) want to go even further and start fully integrating all aspects of state administration.

    I further contend that these people, who I describe as extremists, are in fact a big threat to the Union.

    Now, I’m sure there must be a counter-argument, so please feel free to posit it. Or, if it gives you a warm feeling, just be rude about the status of my mental health or residency.
    Whats there to address ? Its a paranoid ramble.

    Youre talking bollocks. If you make a sensible point its worth discussing.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means? It was, I think - and I can't be bothered to look up the details - a term coined by well-meaning 19th century Frenchmen - literallly 'Christian' - to remind ius that the educationally sub-normal were people too.

    Interestingly also, did you know there is a specific and meadurable hierarchy of the educationally sub-normal. I think it is imbecile, idiot, moron, with imbecile being the most, er, imbecilic. Moron is definitely the least stupid. Again, i can't be bothered to look up the details, largely because I am drunk.
    "Cretin" is a form of learning disability specific to hypothyroidism, rather like "Mongol" for Downs Syndrome. Both terms are obviously considered offensive nowadays, as indeed is the archaic taxonomy of Idiot/Moron/Imbecile etc.

    Every generation or so there is a new euphemism for adult learning disability to try to break the stigma, but they also seem to enter popular usage as insults. Sadly the stigma is too strong.
    I never knew that. I always assumed that in common parlance it meant someone was incredibly stupid.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    On the football today, an interesting top of the table clash between LCFC and MCFC. With the best defence in the League, Leicester look good for a point, and this would give a stronger grip on second place. I think Man City at 1.4 is a Lay.

    Just to give @TheScreamingEagles collywobbles, I would like to point out that when Liverpool are on top on Boxing Day, the second place team always wins the League o:)
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    new thread
  • Options
    speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited December 2019

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.

    I'm generally on your side of this argument but I guess the case for Trump comes from letting the detail slide and thinking about three big, important generalizations:
    1) The incumbent usually wins
    2) Especially if the economy is strong
    3) If there's a way to bollocks this thing up, the Democrats will find it
    Re 1, I think there's a little bit of recency bias here. Now, sure, the last three Presidents have served the full two terms - Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama - but before then the record is more mixed:

    - Bush Sr, one term
    - Reagan, two terms
    - Carter, one term
    - Ford, half a term
    - Nixon, one and a bit terms
    - Johnson, one and a bit terms
    - JFK, somewhat less than a term

    Of the previous seven Presidents, only one managed "two complete terms" between them.

    Trump's issue is that he has really high unfavourables. In 2016, that didn't matter because Ms Clinton had equally high unfavourables. Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar simply don't have those negatives. Even Warren - who's probably the least popular of the Dems - isn't that unpopular.
    I also don't see how the Dems miss Wisconsin and Michigan this time. Their spend in those states will dwarf what they spent last time. In 2020 they won't struggle with the high command having a token effort, "in case people think they might be in play".
    The issue is how close all the states are to either the 2016 or 2018 results.

    In 39 out of 50 states Trump has the same approval numbers as either his 2016 vote share or the republican 2018 midterm results within 2%.

    In Wisconsin and Michigan Trump was very close to 50% of the vote, in Florida and Arizona it was just bellow 50. In all the swing states that he won he did at least 1% better than his national number.

    If Trump gets 48% of the popular vote he will win all of them for sure, at 47% he probably still wins.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means?
    "Cretin" is a form of learning disability specific to hypothyroidism, rather like "Mongol" for Downs Syndrome. Both terms are obviously considered offensive nowadays, as indeed is the archaic taxonomy of Idiot/Moron/Imbecile etc.

    Every generation or so there is a new euphemism for adult learning disability to try to break the stigma, but they also seem to enter popular usage as insults. Sadly the stigma is too strong.
    I never knew that. I always assumed that in common parlance it meant someone was incredibly stupid.
    I think that is now the common usage, its medical usage is now obsolete.

    At one time Cretinism was endemic in certain parts of Europe, particularly around the Alps, due to iodine deficiency in those particular areas. Salt is now generally supplemented with Iodine for this reason. Screening for thyroid function is part of the neonatal screening process, as Cretinism is entirely preventable.
This discussion has been closed.