Just to add to the European polling news in which no one seemed interested (significant Irish opinion poll included):
The latest Spanish poll has PSOE on 30%, PP on 20% and VOX on 17%. Is there any possibility VOX could overtake PP and become the lead opposition from the centre-right before the next Cortes election?
Missed any ealrier post but would have been interested. The Irish poll was the one showing SF surging?
Yes lack of F at Imperial. But absolutely loads of "supertalented weirdos" who could grind almost any problem into dust. Dominic Cummings would be like a kid in a sweet shop there.
Yes lack of F at Imperial. But absolutely loads of "supertalented weirdos" who could grind almost any problem into dust. Dominic Cummings would be like a kid in a sweet shop there.
Imperial is a dump, they’ll take anyone. However weird. Better than Oxford though.
"Claims that President Trump should be viewed as a clear favorite to win a second term in the White House based on the normal advantage of incumbency and a growing economy in 2020 may be overstating his advantages."
"What about that advantage of incumbency?"
"However, there are strong reasons to suspect that Donald Trump may not benefit from the same incumbency advantage that previous first-term presidents have enjoyed."
"According to recent research on congressional elections, the advantage of incumbency has declined sharply in recent years as a result of growing partisan polarization. Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego has shown that voters have become increasingly reluctant to cross party lines to support incumbents based on their voting records or constituency service. The same logic may well apply at the presidential level, especially with an incumbent like Trump whose electoral strategy is based on reinforcing partisan divisions among the public."
Buttigieg is young, rich, without any policies or much baggage.
But his severe lack of charisma and lack of empathy makes him hated by anyone who doesn't make more than 150k a year and isn't white.
Buttigieg's problem is that he comes off as a rich snob, the male version of Jo Swinson.
That's why he is the only candidate of the top 4 that even if he does win Iowa and N.Hampshire he will not win the nomination, no Hispanic or African American will vote for him, they hate his guts.
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Corbyn will be with us as a mere mortal until April.
After that he will become the venerated St Jeremy, preserver of the flame, keeper of the light, guider of all those who seek an equal society, and defender against the foul that is Blairism.
Harry would make a wonderful spearhead for an anti-bullying charity, given the horrific treatment he and his family have had to endure from the media and the monarchical machine.
I wish him well in a life free, at least, from the shackles of Big Royalty.
"Bullying" and "not getting what you want" are not synonyms. I am happy to agree that the press treated him and Meghan badly and, wrt her, racistly.
But as for the "monarchical machine" I don't see that the situation ("here is piles of money. Now open a train station occasionally and set up some charities") constitutes bullying.
And the fact that a lot of people seem to think exactly that worries me...
Sanders led in the Selzer & Co (an A+ pollster) poll on 10 January. But while he was leading, he was hardly well ahead of the pack, picking up just 20% of the vote. He has a fanatical support base, and a large on the ground organisation. This probably makes him the favourite, but by no means an overwhelming one. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances of winning Iowa at no more than 30%. Why?
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
The best evidence of this is the Monmouth University (also A+ with 538) on 13 Jan. They polled people twice: firstly with all the candidates, and secondly with just Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren. (This reflects the inevitable winnowing down that happens as candidates fail to make the 15% at the precinct level). In this case, Sanders comes in third, trailing Biden (28%) and Buttigieg (25%). Simply, as Yang and Booker and Steyer and Klobuchar and the like are eliminated, it is the moderates who gain the most.
Which bring us to Biden. Now, Biden has led in the last two published polls, Monmouth and Neighbourhood Research and Media (B/C rated). And he's had decent leads in both (6% in each before the elimination of lower candidates).
So... why isn't he favourite? Well, the supporters of Biden tend to be less politically active than those who support Sanders. And Biden has a weaker ground game than Sanders or Buttigieg or Warren. The Monmouth poll should also worry him. He scored 24% when all the candidates were listed, but only added 4% when it was a four candidate split.
I would reckon Biden is slightly less likely to win than Sanders, but he's still a 27.5% chance.
Now... Buttigieg. In the four polls this year, he's been tied for first with YouGov (B- pollster), third four points adrift with Seltzer, second with Neighbourhood Research and Media, and 3rd/2nd with Monmouth (depending on whether all candidates or just the top four are included).
Buttigieg also has an extremely well organised machine in Iowa. He's recruited heavily, and has lots of paid staff members and volunteers that will be in chilly caucus meetings across the state.
The thing that works in his favour is how he picks up support as other candidates are eliminated. In the Monmouth poll, he goes from third on 17%, to second on 25% as you go from all candidates to just four. That machine he has organised gives him a real chance.
I make Buttigieg a 25% chance to win Iowa.
Which brings us to Warren. She was second with Selzer and Co, just three points behind Sanders. She's got a decent teens score with almost every pollster. She's probably not more than 7-8 points behind the leader (whoever that is), and the evidence from 538's polls is that she picked up momentum in the last debate.
Her ground game only lags Sanders and Buttigieg. Plus, in the event that Sanders stumbles, she picks up most of his votes.
Warren is far from out of it. I make her a 10-15% shot in Iowa.
Finally, there's Amy Klobuchar. If Neighborhood Research and Media is correct, she's knocked Sanders into fifth in Iowa. She has plenty of volunteers from her native Minnesota. And, historically, candidates from neighbouring states have outperformed in Iowa.
She is having a strong run in to Iowa. It's probably not enough (and the caucus system is cruel to people who fall just short of 15%), but could she win? Yes. She's extremely transfer friendly and well organised. She's probably a 5% shot.
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
Harry would make a wonderful spearhead for an anti-bullying charity, given the horrific treatment he and his family have had to endure from the media and the monarchical machine.
I wish him well in a life free, at least, from the shackles of Big Royalty.
Then he's got no reason to be angry then, after some reflection, since he will be freer from those shackles than he was asking for.
He wanted out, let's wish him well, and he's now about as out as he could be, so what's the problem? Yes all the historical media stuff, but in terms of outcomes it looks like he's got what he wanted - despite what he says, why would he want to have had a confused halfway house that he was initially asking for?
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
Unfortunately, he must have skipped the "sticking around when things get hard" gene from his grandmother and inherited the "fuck off abroad when things get hard and bitch about it" gene from his great-great-uncle David.
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I find boasting about a sophisticated London life while living in a zone 3/4 suburb incomprehensible. All the downside, none of the benefits.
I'm not sure I follow. I lived in New Malden, Zone 4. Less than 25 minutes from Waterloo. I could easily stay out late enjoying London's attractions. Housing was much cheaper and at the weekend I got a more relaxed environment, more like a commuter belt Surrey town. If I wanted to get out of town for the weekend, I was already on the non-urban bit of the A3. I thought it was a good compromise.
You have forgotten to apply the PB filter.
90% of PBers who pontificate about how awful London is know sweet fuck all about London.
London's a fantastic place, but for most people the economies are all wrong, and they've been getting worse. I lived there for 13 years in Hackney, Streatham Hill, Wood Green, and briefly Greenford. When I bought in Streatham it was one of the few areas that I could afford, working for a charity. When I sold it, the people buying were all City workers, priced out of anywhere closer to the centre!
As time passed I saw most of my friends having to move further and further from the centre, paying more, and yet spending less and less time taking advantage of the great things that London had to offer.
I now live in Manchester - about ten minutes on a tram from the centre, near a park much bigger than Hyde or Regents, fifteen minutes drive for genuinely superb countryside, close to some great schools. Living in a quite cul-de-sac, in a large four bedroom house, with a big garden, that cost much less than the flat I left in Streatham Hill. There is still enough theatre, gigs, football, shopping etc., to entertain me for more than one lifetime, but financially it's light and day.
I loved London, but it's for the young, the poor, the transient, and the wealthy. If you're in the middle it's a struggle.
Buttigieg is young, rich, without any policies or much baggage.
But his severe lack of charisma and lack of empathy makes him hated by anyone who doesn't make more than 150k a year and isn't white.
Buttigieg's problem is that he comes off as a rich snob, the male version of Jo Swinson.
That's why he is the only candidate of the top 4 that even if he does win Iowa and N.Hampshire he will not win the nomination, no Hispanic or African American will vote for him, they hate his guts.
He goes down well in rural Iowa which is poor.
That said, I agree that he is far from certain to win the nomination, even if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but at the same time, that's also true of Sanders.
The way I look at this is that (simplisticly) there's a moderate track, which has Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang, Steyer, Bloomberg and (historically) Booker in it. And there's a more idealistic or socialist track that has Sanders, Warren and Gabbard in it.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire with narrow margins over Biden, I don't think he wins the nomination. I think he can only win the nomination if he manages to keep other moderates playing all the way to Super Tuesday and beyond. So, Sanders best result is for Iowa and New Hampshire to be him first, with Buttigieg second and Biden third (and ideally Warren nowhere). (If Klobuchar could be third that would extra double plus good for Sanders. That means that (come Super Tuesday), Warren won't be playing, and Biden will be damaged. On the other hand, if Biden sees of Buttigieg and Klobuchar in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's going to consolidate the moderate vote pretty quickly (especially given he should win South Carolina at a canter).
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I think that's right. Klobuchar through the middle?
The LDP have been running this scam for decades, they had this whole plan to move parliament (this is usually translated as "the diet" to make it sound more exotic) to somewhere outside Tokyo, ostensibly so that it would keep functioning in the event of an earthquake. For maximum effect, instead of just picking one city, have a shortlist of three or four, then their local governments want in on the action and they create a lot of local publicity for the (pretend) plan.
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
Unfortunately, he must have skipped the "sticking around when things get hard" gene from his grandmother and inherited the "fuck off abroad when things get hard and bitch about it" gene from his great-great-uncle David.
I thought he was saying he doesn't want to fuck off. Anyway there's clearly more to it than that. Everyone - the press (particularly), the Queen, the various palace hangers on, as well as H&M - are playing to their agendas. But there is real hurt there, is what I am saying.
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I think that's right. Klobuchar through the middle?
But there is real hurt there, is what I am saying.
Well yes they thought they could jet in from Vancouver and lay down the law to HMQ.
They've found out the hard way that no one (other than Her Majesty herself) is that important and that an institution that's survived for a thousand years (forget about that little local difficulty in the 17th Century ) will ALWAYS put the institution first.
Not sure why it should be a shock or a surprise.
The best thing Harry can do is get in the nearest plane to Vancouver and go and live his life and let everyone here have a bit of peace and quiet from the whole debacle.
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I think that's right. Klobuchar through the middle?
LOL! We know what H and Meg wanted but it was never going to happen.
He must've known what the end result would be so not sure why he's bleating now.
1) Would H&M have started this if they had known the deal they would get? I think not. 2) Do you think M is sufficiently Hollywood that she might think about consciously uncoupling if life is too far from her original expectations? I hope not.
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
Unfortunately, he must have skipped the "sticking around when things get hard" gene from his grandmother and inherited the "fuck off abroad when things get hard and bitch about it" gene from his great-great-uncle David.
I thought he was saying he doesn't want to fuck off. Anyway there's clearly more to it than that. Everyone - the press (particularly), the Queen, the various palace hangers on, as well as H&M - are playing to their agendas. But there is real hurt there, is what I am saying.
I think he wanted the benefits but not the duties, and he wanted to do it in North America not Britain. That's pretty much the definition of "fucking off", to be honest.
I'm sure he's hurt, and oddly enough I sympathise: it's not a pleasant situation. But I don't know how much sympathy I should extend to somebody who voluntarily resigned. Contrary to what everybody seems to think, he was not pushed out.
Time to ditch HS2, close a dozen hospitals, start shooting food bank users etc etc...
The one line Successsion to the Throne Act 2020 can be slipped through on the quiet, replacing Prince Charles with Carrie Symonds.....
I think the gig should go to Boris, and Carrie can be an Anne Boleyn figure. Boris could hand over the day to day running of government to Dom... oh wait a minute.
Time to ditch HS2, close a dozen hospitals, start shooting food bank users etc etc...
The one line Successsion to the Throne Act 2020 can be slipped through on the quiet, replacing Prince Charles with Carrie Symonds.....
I think the gig should go to Boris, and Carrie can be an Anne Boleyn figure. Boris could hand over the day to day running of government to Dom... oh wait a minute.
I think the beheading of Carrie might just lose Boris my vote.....
Harry would make a wonderful spearhead for an anti-bullying charity, given the horrific treatment he and his family have had to endure from the media and the monarchical machine.
I wish him well in a life free, at least, from the shackles of Big Royalty.
Maybe Meghan will finally allow her dad to see baby Archie?
I find boasting about a sophisticated London life while living in a zone 3/4 suburb incomprehensible. All the downside, none of the benefits.
I'm not sure I follow. I lived in New Malden, Zone 4. Less than 25 minutes from Waterloo. I could easily stay out late enjoying London's attractions. Housing was much cheaper and at the weekend I got a more relaxed environment, more like a commuter belt Surrey town. If I wanted to get out of town for the weekend, I was already on the non-urban bit of the A3. I thought it was a good compromise.
You have forgotten to apply the PB filter.
90% of PBers who pontificate about how awful London is know sweet fuck all about London.
But that is waaaaaaaaaaay better than average.
99 percent of PB-ers who pontificate about Wales or Scotland would not be able to place Dolgellau or Stranraer on a map.
I've been to Stranraer. Does Dolgellau have a station?
You'll need a Tardis:
"Dolgellau was a station on the Ruabon to Barmouth railway line. The line opened on 4th August 1868 and closed to passengers on 18th January 1965 as a result of the Beeching Axe."
I'm sure many students choose it for more academic reasons but I certainly would not have gone to Imperial if it had not been located in central London.
Interesting as I made a point of not choosing Imperial because I lived in Surrey and it was too close. I went to Manchester.
Having said that it was in the early 70s so I'm not sure how relevant that is today.
I didn't choose Imperial (I had an offer) because it was over 80% male and seemed very nerdy, rather than fun.
So, I picked Bristol.
I don't regret it.
I spent nearly 10 years at Imperial (Biochemistry). I did my Undergrad, Postgrad and my first post-doc there.
'And while they stood there silently, a great bubble rose out of the depths, and broke, and as they watched, another bubble shook to the surface, and broke; and there was a third bubble in the sea-going waters, and nothing more.'
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I think that's right. Klobuchar through the middle?
It was a joke in extremely poor taste, so I deleted it
I didn't know comments could be deleted, how'd you do that?
rcs1000 has absolute power here as son of OGH (talk about nepotism...)
*banned*
Thanks for the info, is that generally known? Other forums and have some indication of role when people post, would be useful to state clearly for newbies.
It was a joke in extremely poor taste, so I deleted it
I didn't know comments could be deleted, how'd you do that?
rcs1000 has absolute power here as son of OGH (talk about nepotism...)
*banned*
Thanks for the info, is that generally known? Other forums and have some indication of role when people post, would be useful to state clearly for newbies.
Not sure how widely it is known, but people tend to behave themselves here @rcs1000 is in charge of the servers that run PB.
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
And it doesn't help that he's got into a huge bad-tempered food fight with Warren.
I think that's right. Klobuchar through the middle?
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Not in 2017 it wasn't. So what changed? One thing was his glasses, and not just that he was wearing them at all but the special lens would block eye contact with the audience. Think when you last saw someone making a speech wearing sunglasses, or any glasses at all. These things do make a difference at the margins.
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Not in 2017 it wasn't. So what changed? One thing was his glasses, and not just that he was wearing them at all but the special lens would block eye contact with the audience. Think when you last saw someone making a speech wearing sunglasses, or any glasses at all. These things do make a difference at the margins.
2017 was not Corbyn being good, it was the Tories being incredibly bad. The Tories fecked up the election over older persons sweeties like winter fuel ...
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Starting with the racism. He really did come across as both rather unhinged and thoroughly unpleasant:
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Not in 2017 it wasn't. So what changed? One thing was his glasses, and not just that he was wearing them at all but the special lens would block eye contact with the audience. Think when you last saw someone making a speech wearing sunglasses, or any glasses at all. These things do make a difference at the margins.
2017 was not Corbyn being good, it was the Tories being incredibly bad. The Tories fecked up the election over older persons sweeties like winter fuel ...
I think that is overplayed and have pointed out the terrorist attacks during the campaign allowed Labour to point the finger at Theresa May's police cuts.
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Starting with the racism. He really did come across as both rather unhinged and thoroughly unpleasant:
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
pathetic drama queen , always whining about how ill done to they are whilst milking the public
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
pathetic drama queen , always whining about how ill done to they are whilst milking the public
'And while they stood there silently, a great bubble rose out of the depths, and broke, and as they watched, another bubble shook to the surface, and broke; and there was a third bubble in the sea-going waters, and nothing more.'
It is animals all the way ... mine is the killing of Kes by Billy's elder brother.
Unlike the Queen he came over as ungracious and frankly rather pathetic
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
Harry comes over to me as very hurt in that speech.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
pathetic drama queen , always whining about how ill done to they are whilst milking the public
Re. the Dems, I don't think this US election is as interesting as this site tries to make it. I guess there's some betting to be had but Trump looks a shoo-in for re-election to me, with an increased electoral college.
Re. the Dems, I don't think this US election is as interesting as this site tries to make it. I guess there's some betting to be had but Trump looks a shoo-in for re-election to me, with an increased electoral college.
Gods I hope not, but after being genuinely surprised last time he could be 10 pts down in every state and I'd not celebrate until the vote is counted. Hopefully the Dens arent stupid, but they've not been great at that.
My feeling is Sanders or Buttigieg will win Iowa. Because the gap between the main 4 candidates is smaller than the % of people opting for Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer, but I can't set Biden getting a lot of 2nd preferences (you have to reach 15% at a district level to win delegates, and can move to a different candidate). If you want Biden you're probably voting for him first (or another major candidate).
A random ge2019 thought: were Corbyn's glasses part of his problem?
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
Its what was behind the glasses that was the problem....
Not in 2017 it wasn't. So what changed? One thing was his glasses, and not just that he was wearing them at all but the special lens would block eye contact with the audience. Think when you last saw someone making a speech wearing sunglasses, or any glasses at all. These things do make a difference at the margins.
2017 was not Corbyn being good, it was the Tories being incredibly bad. The Tories fecked up the election over older persons sweeties like winter fuel ...
I think that is overplayed and have pointed out the terrorist attacks during the campaign allowed Labour to point the finger at Theresa May's police cuts.
If the Grenfell fire had happened in the last week of the campaign it would have obliterated her. The party she led seemed to have no means to defend itself against a much sharper narrative shaping operation.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Not sure there’s a ‘correct’ answer. The opening sequence of Up is a masterpiece, but I read Lord of the Flies when I was twelve, and it definitely affected me more.
'And while they stood there silently, a great bubble rose out of the depths, and broke, and as they watched, another bubble shook to the surface, and broke; and there was a third bubble in the sea-going waters, and nothing more.'
It is animals all the way ... mine is the killing of Kes by Billy's elder brother.
I remember finding Kes very upsetting and depressing. My favourite book from my childhood was Moonfleet. The death of Elzevir Block still chokes me when I think about it.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
Equally should the best person be given the job or the best person wearing this month's in colour?
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
It's sadly ironic that the Labour Party finds itself in this position. You reap what you sow.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
I should except Oxford University, as they have a female Vice Chancellor.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
I don't think the Labour Party would take a view on your scenario at all, let alone go ballistic. There would be some comments by
I think Jess is correct on this.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
I don't think the Labour Party would comment on your scenario at all, let alone go ballistic. A few MPs would probably comment or write blogs about it, and that would be it. Here, we're looking at who should potentially govern the country. It's reasonable to try to choose the best person, not any particular gender, though I agree, other things being equal, that it'd be nice to break the pattern of male leaders.
In any case I don't think we are going to see all the candidates on the ballot paper. Starmer, RLB and Nandy, and that's probably it.
Shame she feels the need to play this card. The reality is that neither she nor the other women standing, let alone the hopeless RLB, are as electable as Starmer. Yvette Cooper might have been a different matter, but she is not standing. Nice as Jess seems, she has little or no experience of anything outside politics or in it. She does not advance equality one bit by this kind of nonsense.
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
"Positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" in the workplace is illegal in this country and quite rightly so. Choosing women, or people from disadvantaged groups is absolutely right if those people are able to demonstrate they are at least equal in experience skills or potential. The problem for Labour is that all of the women candidates exhibit degrees of hopelessness. Nandy is the best of them , but she is not PM material, certainly not yet, and no where near as good as Cooper.
As an ex Tory activist I can tell you that those few Tories I am still friends with very much hope it is not Starmer. Those that are extremely partisan hope it will be Lightweight-Bailey, but Jess or Nandy would do. I am sure that will be the view of Conservative Central Office.
Re. the Dems, I don't think this US election is as interesting as this site tries to make it. I guess there's some betting to be had but Trump looks a shoo-in for re-election to me, with an increased electoral college.
If you really think that then you should find it a really, really interesting election, because you have the chance to profit from the market's huge mispricing of this sure thing.
Comments
Maybe he should catch tomorrow afternoons BA flight to Vancouver
I hope you do not mind but your Avatar unnerves me somewhat, as I had hoped we had seen the last of Corbyn !!!!
"What about that advantage of incumbency?"
"However, there are strong reasons to suspect that Donald Trump may not benefit from the same incumbency advantage that previous first-term presidents have enjoyed."
"According to recent research on congressional elections, the advantage of incumbency has declined sharply in recent years as a result of growing partisan polarization. Gary Jacobson of the University of California, San Diego has shown that voters have become increasingly reluctant to cross party lines to support incumbents based on their voting records or constituency service. The same logic may well apply at the presidential level, especially with an incumbent like Trump whose electoral strategy is based on reinforcing partisan divisions among the public."
http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/dont-believe-the-washington-cw-trump-is-no-shoo-in-for-reelection/
After that he will become the venerated St Jeremy, preserver of the flame, keeper of the light, guider of all those who seek an equal society, and defender against the foul that is Blairism.
https://twitter.com/thatericalper/status/1218661890743775233?s=21
But as for the "monarchical machine" I don't see that the situation ("here is piles of money. Now open a train station occasionally and set up some charities") constitutes bullying.
And the fact that a lot of people seem to think exactly that worries me...
He must've known what the end result would be so not sure why he's bleating now.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1218997829139648514
There are five possible winners:
Sanders led in the Selzer & Co (an A+ pollster) poll on 10 January. But while he was leading, he was hardly well ahead of the pack, picking up just 20% of the vote. He has a fanatical support base, and a large on the ground organisation. This probably makes him the favourite, but by no means an overwhelming one. Indeed, I'd reckon his chances of winning Iowa at no more than 30%. Why?
Because all the evidence is that he's not particularly transfer friendly. This means that while he can probably get to 30% in Iowa, if he picks up a chunk of Warren vote (which, by the way, requires her to do poorly on the night... which she might not), that probably won't be a winning score.
The best evidence of this is the Monmouth University (also A+ with 538) on 13 Jan. They polled people twice: firstly with all the candidates, and secondly with just Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren. (This reflects the inevitable winnowing down that happens as candidates fail to make the 15% at the precinct level). In this case, Sanders comes in third, trailing Biden (28%) and Buttigieg (25%). Simply, as Yang and Booker and Steyer and Klobuchar and the like are eliminated, it is the moderates who gain the most.
Which bring us to Biden. Now, Biden has led in the last two published polls, Monmouth and Neighbourhood Research and Media (B/C rated). And he's had decent leads in both (6% in each before the elimination of lower candidates).
So... why isn't he favourite? Well, the supporters of Biden tend to be less politically active than those who support Sanders. And Biden has a weaker ground game than Sanders or Buttigieg or Warren. The Monmouth poll should also worry him. He scored 24% when all the candidates were listed, but only added 4% when it was a four candidate split.
I would reckon Biden is slightly less likely to win than Sanders, but he's still a 27.5% chance.
Buttigieg also has an extremely well organised machine in Iowa. He's recruited heavily, and has lots of paid staff members and volunteers that will be in chilly caucus meetings across the state.
The thing that works in his favour is how he picks up support as other candidates are eliminated. In the Monmouth poll, he goes from third on 17%, to second on 25% as you go from all candidates to just four. That machine he has organised gives him a real chance.
I make Buttigieg a 25% chance to win Iowa.
Which brings us to Warren. She was second with Selzer and Co, just three points behind Sanders. She's got a decent teens score with almost every pollster. She's probably not more than 7-8 points behind the leader (whoever that is), and the evidence from 538's polls is that she picked up momentum in the last debate.
Her ground game only lags Sanders and Buttigieg. Plus, in the event that Sanders stumbles, she picks up most of his votes.
Warren is far from out of it. I make her a 10-15% shot in Iowa.
Finally, there's Amy Klobuchar. If Neighborhood Research and Media is correct, she's knocked Sanders into fifth in Iowa. She has plenty of volunteers from her native Minnesota. And, historically, candidates from neighbouring states have outperformed in Iowa.
She is having a strong run in to Iowa. It's probably not enough (and the caucus system is cruel to people who fall just short of 15%), but could she win? Yes. She's extremely transfer friendly and well organised. She's probably a 5% shot.
I don't know the ins and out, though. On the basis of this clip. I would say Harry is good at this public engagement stuff, He has something of his mother's quality.
He wanted out, let's wish him well, and he's now about as out as he could be, so what's the problem? Yes all the historical media stuff, but in terms of outcomes it looks like he's got what he wanted - despite what he says, why would he want to have had a confused halfway house that he was initially asking for?
As time passed I saw most of my friends having to move further and further from the centre, paying more, and yet spending less and less time taking advantage of the great things that London had to offer.
I now live in Manchester - about ten minutes on a tram from the centre, near a park much bigger than Hyde or Regents, fifteen minutes drive for genuinely superb countryside, close to some great schools. Living in a quite cul-de-sac, in a large four bedroom house, with a big garden, that cost much less than the flat I left in Streatham Hill. There is still enough theatre, gigs, football, shopping etc., to entertain me for more than one lifetime, but financially it's light and day.
I loved London, but it's for the young, the poor, the transient, and the wealthy. If you're in the middle it's a struggle.
That said, I agree that he is far from certain to win the nomination, even if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but at the same time, that's also true of Sanders.
The way I look at this is that (simplisticly) there's a moderate track, which has Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Yang, Steyer, Bloomberg and (historically) Booker in it. And there's a more idealistic or socialist track that has Sanders, Warren and Gabbard in it.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire with narrow margins over Biden, I don't think he wins the nomination. I think he can only win the nomination if he manages to keep other moderates playing all the way to Super Tuesday and beyond. So, Sanders best result is for Iowa and New Hampshire to be him first, with Buttigieg second and Biden third (and ideally Warren nowhere). (If Klobuchar could be third that would extra double plus good for Sanders. That means that (come Super Tuesday), Warren won't be playing, and Biden will be damaged. On the other hand, if Biden sees of Buttigieg and Klobuchar in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he's going to consolidate the moderate vote pretty quickly (especially given he should win South Carolina at a canter).
They've found out the hard way that no one (other than Her Majesty herself) is that important and that an institution that's survived for a thousand years (forget about that little local difficulty in the 17th Century
Not sure why it should be a shock or a surprise.
The best thing Harry can do is get in the nearest plane to Vancouver and go and live his life and let everyone here have a bit of peace and quiet from the whole debacle.
I score big on Klobuchar and Buttigieg, and do fine with Biden, Warren and Sanders
2) Do you think M is sufficiently Hollywood that she might think about consciously uncoupling if life is too far from her original expectations? I hope not.
Edited: my normal dyslexic typos
I'm sure he's hurt, and oddly enough I sympathise: it's not a pleasant situation. But I don't know how much sympathy I should extend to somebody who voluntarily resigned. Contrary to what everybody seems to think, he was not pushed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_C5NIUu6FM
Terrified me as a child....
bubble rose out of the depths, and broke, and as
they watched, another bubble shook to the
surface, and broke; and there was a
third bubble in the sea-going
waters, and nothing
more.'
*banned*
Btw, Welcome to the site.
https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1219107997097570312?s=19
https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1219113848982200321?s=19
Firstly by making it hard for audiences to make eye contact with him, and secondly because of the odd angle he wore them at, as if he'd carelessly jammed them on, looking old and grumpy. Most politicians avoid glasses, perhaps for audience engagement reasons. Actually there are clips of Boris on book tours wearing glasses at similar angles. It may be that Lynton Crosby's most valuable advice to Boris a decade ago was to ditch them. Whether he now wears contacts, or has had surgery, or just sees audiences as a blur is not known.
There are a couple, but the first one I think I remember clearly was Boxer in Animal Farm.
Edited extra bit: in response to the fictional death query, of course.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jonathan-freedland-reacts-to-corbyn-s-attack-on-his-early-warning-about-labour-antisemitism-1.495569
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51128950
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jess-phillips-urges-men-to-pass-the-mic-on-labour-leadership/ar-BBZ74b8?ocid=spartanntp
Suppose the shortlist for any other important job (DG of the BBC or Governor of the BoE or Vice Chancellor of Oxford) was composed of 4 women and 1 man ... and the man won, despite there never having been a previous female occupant of the position.
Well, the Labour Party would go ballistic.
For me, it is yet another example of the Labour Party lecturing everyone else on something, but not actually doing it themselves.
The opening sequence of Up is a masterpiece, but I read Lord of the Flies when I was twelve, and it definitely affected me more.
----
Again, people say Keir looks like a leader or looks electable.
But, why do RLB or Lisa or Jess or Emily not look like leaders or not look electable?
They do differ in a fundamental way from all previous Labour leaders.
It seems 100 per cent pure unconscious bias to me.
In any case I don't think we are going to see all the candidates on the ballot paper. Starmer, RLB and Nandy, and that's probably it.
As an ex Tory activist I can tell you that those few Tories I am still friends with very much hope it is not Starmer. Those that are extremely partisan hope it will be Lightweight-Bailey, but Jess or Nandy would do. I am sure that will be the view of Conservative Central Office.