Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
Right now it could be a "Vote anyone and still get Trump" situation.
I've never watched Love Island but obviously this is an absolute tragedy. Is her death related to the show or more to do with her personal life. Horrendous whatever the reason anyway.
Personal life, probably. The Guardian now have it as their main story, I guess because they can see an anti-popular press angle.
Likely personal life, but in a way celebrity related. I wouldn't blame the media for reporting negative things about her, but media types probably do need to have a huge think about the support structures there for celebs whose lives go wrong in whatever way as the fallout from losing your livelihood and reputation in public is obviously brutal and compounded by the fact there's no hiding from it with social media nowadays.
Or we could all just stop caring. I'm doing my bit.
Also on the Democratic nomination battle. It's worth remembering that demographically the Democratic selectorate doesn't look very much like Iowa or New Hampshire. But nor does it look like South Carolina.
In fact, if you want to see what the Democratic selectorate looks like across the whole country, you'd be best of looking at Nevada. It overindexes slightly on Hispanic voters, but otherwise looks remarkably like the country as a whole.
It is therefore a perfect opportunity to see how the candidates stack up before we get to Super Tuesday.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
It is worth remembering, though, that if the gap becomes too great then the system will become unsustainable.
Imagine a situation where Donald Trump Jr got 40% of the vote, while Chelsea Clinton got 60%. But because of the electoral college it was DTJr that became President.
I think then that either the country would need to change the electoral college system, or there would be succession. The system has to be seen as fair if it is to continue.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
It is worth remembering, though, that if the gap becomes too great then the system will become unsustainable.
Imagine a situation where Donald Trump Jr got 40% of the vote, while Chelsea Clinton got 60%. But because of the electoral college it was DTJr that became President.
I think then that either the country would need to change the electoral college system, or there would be succession. The system has to be seen as fair if it is to continue.
I accept that there must be limits. But I don't think 2016 was beyond them. And it is important that all parts of the country think that they play a part. If California became as dominant as its population might allow that would not be healthy either.
And in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden got meaningfully lower vote shares than the polls indicated.
I think this comes down to two factors:
Firstly, Biden has a less good machine for getting voters out. Ground game matters in low turnout elections.
Secondly, Biden supporters are less politically engaged. There's almost a perfect correlation between "not much answers" to "how much attention are you paying to the Democratic primary?" and Biden support.
That's a big problem for Biden. It suggests that the more people focus on who to vote for in the Primaries, the less likely they are to vote for Biden.
Biden's biggest support comes from African Americans, their vote was negligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, in South Carolina they make up most voters
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
That is the view of most Democratic voters, what swing voters state may be different but Democrats decide the primaries
Bloomberg is so OLD! Older than Biden. He was born one month after Pearl Harbour. He and Sanders are both 78. For some reason his age is not commented on.
Explain to me why ageism is better than racism and sexism.
Because you really CAN be too young or old for a job like president; you cannot be too black, white, male or female.
Well said. Brain degeneration at that age is real - and its not just about his state now but for five years to come (the elected POTUS will serve until Jan 2025).
Plus Presidents are under a lot of pressure. They age - and age fast - while in office. Ageing from 78 in this modern era is a lot.
Bloomberg is so OLD! Older than Biden. He was born one month after Pearl Harbour. He and Sanders are both 78. For some reason his age is not commented on.
Explain to me why ageism is better than racism and sexism.
Because you really CAN be too young or old for a job like president; you cannot be too black, white, male or female.
However, you can also be accused of being mentally or physically unfit, or too inexperienced or unwise, both on grounds of age, when you aren't.
So you're half right, putting presidential or prime ministerial ageism in a unique category between prejudice and common sense, at times including both.
At the same time, most senior jobs aren't open to the very young or very old in the first place, meaning that age discrimination in the large zone in between is likely to be closer to prejudice.
Meh. I think it's pretty clear cut. No one under 21 is really capable of being POTUS, and no one over 80 either.
Indeed, and contentiously, I'd go further and make it a job open to people age 25-70 only (when first elected).
America's gerontacracy is a deep shame, and a discredit to the world's most powerful democracy. It is also bad news for the rest of us, who witness Trump's cognitive decline
The founding fathers agreed with you. You have to be 35 or over to be President. In practice, the youngest was 42.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
That argument will be forgotten when Sanders gets more delegates to the convention than any other candidate but doesn't get the nomination.
It is worth remembering that when Candidate A quits the race and endorses Candidate B, then typically A's delegates become B's.
So, when John Edwards quit the race in 2008 and endorsed Obama, his 14 delegates became Obama's.
It is therefore entirely possible - especially given how fragmented this race is - that Buttigieg and/or Biden endorses Klobuchar (for example) and pushes their delegate total past Sanders.
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
Right now it could be a "Vote anyone and still get Trump" situation.
That is quite true. However vote Bernie to guarantee Trump is also true.
And in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden got meaningfully lower vote shares than the polls indicated.
I think this comes down to two factors:
Firstly, Biden has a less good machine for getting voters out. Ground game matters in low turnout elections.
Secondly, Biden supporters are less politically engaged. There's almost a perfect correlation between "not much answers" to "how much attention are you paying to the Democratic primary?" and Biden support.
That's a big problem for Biden. It suggests that the more people focus on who to vote for in the Primaries, the less likely they are to vote for Biden.
Biden's biggest support comes from African Americans, their vote was negligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, in South Carolina they make up most voters
With white Democrats Sanders leads Biden nationally now 24% to 19%, with black Democrats Biden leads Sanders 35% to 27% still
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
And in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden got meaningfully lower vote shares than the polls indicated.
I think this comes down to two factors:
Firstly, Biden has a less good machine for getting voters out. Ground game matters in low turnout elections.
Secondly, Biden supporters are less politically engaged. There's almost a perfect correlation between "not much answers" to "how much attention are you paying to the Democratic primary?" and Biden support.
That's a big problem for Biden. It suggests that the more people focus on who to vote for in the Primaries, the less likely they are to vote for Biden.
Biden's biggest support comes from African Americans, their vote was negligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, in South Carolina they make up most voters
The point I'm making is that lots of people stopped supporting Biden in the last week of both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, it's entirely possible that this was a one-off. Or, perhaps rather, a two-off.
But it's also entirely possible that African Americans in South Carolina will notice that having a candidate who's not, to put it kindly, as sharp as he was in 2008 is not a good idea.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Yes, but you still need to win under the crappy system before you can change it, and its only recently that more have even talked about doing so. People don't need to be fans of the electoral college system to note that winning the popular vote didn't matter, that's just fact, and a failure to win in the way that was necessary still a failure.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
Well counting into the middle teens as well, but yes. Why wouldn't I? It doesn't prevent reading a wide variety of other books - I'm on a bit of book drive at the moment and have read loads already this year.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
Bloomberg is so OLD! Older than Biden. He was born one month after Pearl Harbour. He and Sanders are both 78. For some reason his age is not commented on.
Explain to me why ageism is better than racism and sexism.
Because you really CAN be too young or old for a job like president; you cannot be too black, white, male or female.
Well said. Brain degeneration at that age is real - and its not just about his state now but for five years to come (the elected POTUS will serve until Jan 2025).
Plus Presidents are under a lot of pressure. They age - and age fast - while in office. Ageing from 78 in this modern era is a lot.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
The thing about LOTR is that it's the greatest story ever told (one of), but it isn't much else. The writing is flat and uninteresting, it cries out for some really savage editing - all the stuff before the Council of Elrond, bar 30 pages to establish what the Shire and hobbits are like, needs to go, especially that intolerable twat Tom Bombadil. You are allowed to read it once for the story, and once more 10 years later to remind yourself how good the story is, and that is it.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Yes, but you still need to win under the crappy system before you can change it, and its only recently that more have even talked about doing so. People don't need to be fans of the electoral college system to note that winning the popular vote didn't matter, that's just fact, and a failure to win in the way that was necessary still a failure.
Search your feelings, kle4 - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Yes, but you still need to win under the crappy system before you can change it, and its only recently that more have even talked about doing so. People don't need to be fans of the electoral college system to note that winning the popular vote didn't matter, that's just fact, and a failure to win in the way that was necessary still a failure.
Search your feelings, kle4 - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
I already said it was! What does that have to do with anything?!
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
That is the view of most Democratic voters, what swing voters state may be different but Democrats decide the primaries
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
And I'm sure I've read Hitchhiker's at least as much
Bloomberg is so OLD! Older than Biden. He was born one month after Pearl Harbour. He and Sanders are both 78. For some reason his age is not commented on.
Explain to me why ageism is better than racism and sexism.
Because you really CAN be too young or old for a job like president; you cannot be too black, white, male or female.
Well said. Brain degeneration at that age is real - and its not just about his state now but for five years to come (the elected POTUS will serve until Jan 2025).
Plus Presidents are under a lot of pressure. They age - and age fast - while in office. Ageing from 78 in this modern era is a lot.
Hmm. Disraeli served into his mid/late seventies, if I remember correctly, Gladstone into his early 80's, and Plato was still supposed to have been teaching at the Academy into his early 80s, IIRC also.
There is an argument that the intense intellectual stimulation of these jobs can also keep people going longer.
And in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden got meaningfully lower vote shares than the polls indicated.
I think this comes down to two factors:
Firstly, Biden has a less good machine for getting voters out. Ground game matters in low turnout elections.
Secondly, Biden supporters are less politically engaged. There's almost a perfect correlation between "not much answers" to "how much attention are you paying to the Democratic primary?" and Biden support.
That's a big problem for Biden. It suggests that the more people focus on who to vote for in the Primaries, the less likely they are to vote for Biden.
Biden's biggest support comes from African Americans, their vote was negligible in Iowa and New Hampshire, in South Carolina they make up most voters
The point I'm making is that lots of people stopped supporting Biden in the last week of both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, it's entirely possible that this was a one-off. Or, perhaps rather, a two-off.
But it's also entirely possible that African Americans in South Carolina will notice that having a candidate who's not, to put it kindly, as sharp as he was in 2008 is not a good idea.
Maybe, maybe not but at the moment he remains the candidate African Americans see as best representing their interests due to his Obama connection as his VP in large part.
While Sanders now leads with white and Hispanic Democrats, Biden thus still leads with African American Democrats
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
So people's votes don't matter in a democracy?
Search your feelings, DavidL - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
I'm not sure I would replace it with a direct vote with no geographical restrictions. And the Electoral College numbers are updated to reflect the relative size of the States pretty regularly which should keep the system roughly in balance. I am sure that the republican vote is artificially reduced in both California and NY, just as votes often are here in safe constituencies. The Democrats need a candidate that can win the rust bucket states of middle America. That is probably a good thing.
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
That is the view of most Democratic voters, what swing voters state may be different but Democrats decide the primaries
I do find non-fiction to be a bit of a chore to reread most of the time, so I prefer to be gifted those rather than buy them myself as they'll be read once - I like to get value out of my books, and if I'm only going to read it once or twice that's not much value.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
And I'm sure I've read Hitchhiker's at least as much
As well as LOTR I am pretty close to that with Thief of Time and I still laugh out loud (much to my family's amusement).
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Your analogy is a poor one.
Sunil is right. In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system is flawed. Cameron thought the 2005 GE was unrepresentative of the votes cast so decided to address the anomaly. Perfectly sensible.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
And I'm sure I've read Hitchhiker's at least as much
As well as LOTR I am pretty close to that with Thief of Time and I still laugh out loud (much to my family's amusement).
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Your analogy is a poor one.
Sunil is right. In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system is flawed. Cameron thought the 2005 GE was unrepresentative of the votes cast so decided to address the anomaly. Perfectly sensible.
What's poor about it?
In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system worked as designed by its founders. Because to win you don't need to be the most popular across the country, you need to be the most popular in enough states to win. Piling up votes in large states but ignoring small states is something the founders deliberately designed the system to avoid.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
I just got lost with them. I have pretty much the full set and trying again is on my to do list.
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
That is the view of most Democratic voters, what swing voters state may be different but Democrats decide the primaries
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
I just got lost with them. I have pretty much the full set and trying again is on my to do list.
I would recommend it. It is a vast world with lots of plots that is created so I can understand getting lost with it, but if you can get into it then I think it is great.
Very dodgy decision if so, not least in terms of its symbolism.
He's annoying me. I dismissed him as a vanity candidate with a deep purse. I am now feeling very stupid. Bad Bloomberg.
He is a vanity candidate, Democratic voters will vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, in my view Bloomberg only gets to the general election if he goes Independent.
Democrats are not going to vote for a Bloomberg -Hillary ticket, because Hillary 2016 'was not elitist enough' they now need to add an ex Republican billionaire to a Hillary ticket is not a message to convince Democratic voters
Not according to my 100% anecdotal sources.
Vote Sanders get Trump.
That is the view of most Democratic voters, what swing voters state may be different but Democrats decide the primaries
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
They said that about they wouldn't vote for a black man. They did.
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
They said that about they wouldn't vote for a black man. They did.
Totally different . Obama was married and straight . There’s zip chance of Buttigieg winning if he’s the Democrat nominee.
Do you seriously think the rust belt states will vote for a gay man . And that’s also going to be an issue in some states the Dems currently hold .
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
So people's votes don't matter in a democracy?
Search your feelings, DavidL - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
I'm not sure I would replace it with a direct vote with no geographical restrictions. And the Electoral College numbers are updated to reflect the relative size of the States pretty regularly which should keep the system roughly in balance. I am sure that the republican vote is artificially reduced in both California and NY, just as votes often are here in safe constituencies. The Democrats need a candidate that can win the rust bucket states of middle America. That is probably a good thing.
But American voters are electing a single President - the States aren't electing 50 different Presidents.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
And I'm sure I've read Hitchhiker's at least as much
As well as LOTR I am pretty close to that with Thief of Time and I still laugh out loud (much to my family's amusement).
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
I just got lost with them. I have pretty much the full set and trying again is on my to do list.
I would recommend it. It is a vast world with lots of plots that is created so I can understand getting lost with it, but if you can get into it then I think it is great.
Lord of Chaos I think is my favourite - that ending was powerful as hell. Bit of a drag around books 9-11, but it picks up again. Possibly my favourite high fantasy series.
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
They said that about they wouldn't vote for a black man. They did.
Evangelical Christians would have sworn blind they wouldn't vote for a serial adulterer who paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion. Yet they also did.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals.
Nope you have it backwards.
Electors = points. Votes = goals.
Having more possession, or even more goals across a season, doesn't win you the title. Having more points does - just like you need more electors.
The country is like a season, the states are like individual games.
Its not enough to just win a few games 8-0 then draw the rest, if your opponent is winning all their games 1-0 they will win the season even if you have more goals.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
What's even better is when you discover a new author, especially with an ongoing series. If they're early- or mid-career and have got many novels left in them, it's even better. Older ones can be problematic - fiftysomething Charles Stross is blocked due to family illnesses and might not be able to finishThe Laundry Files satisfyingly, and I'm praying Max Hastings stays active, but he's 74 now.
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's 40.
You've read a book..... TEN TIMES?
As an adult??
There are a couple of Christopher Brookmyre novels I must have read half a dozen times each.
And I'm sure I've read Hitchhiker's at least as much
As well as LOTR I am pretty close to that with Thief of Time and I still laugh out loud (much to my family's amusement).
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
They said that about they wouldn't vote for a black man. They did.
Evangelical Christians would have sworn blind they wouldn't vote for a serial adulterer who paid for his girlfriend to have an abortion. Yet they also did.
Trump addressed the March for Life and has pursued several anti abortion policies
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
So people's votes don't matter in a democracy?
Search your feelings, DavidL - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
I'm not sure I would replace it with a direct vote with no geographical restrictions. And the Electoral College numbers are updated to reflect the relative size of the States pretty regularly which should keep the system roughly in balance. I am sure that the republican vote is artificially reduced in both California and NY, just as votes often are here in safe constituencies. The Democrats need a candidate that can win the rust bucket states of middle America. That is probably a good thing.
But American voters are electing a single President - the States aren't electing 50 different Presidents.
No but the system requires parties that want to win (Democrats, this is called a clue) to choose a candidate that can appeal to different parts of the country not just maximise the liberal vote in California and NY. I think that's an essential part of holding the country together.
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
Some truth in that, only 51% of black Americans and 58% of Hispanic Americans support gay marriage compared to 62% of white Americans
Is the 15 times thing meant to be surprising? I mean, I don't think there's any book that I have read quite that many times, but I have read some at least 10 times while only being 33. If it's his favourite book then I'd not be surprised if he read it once a year, in which case 15 might well be low given he's near 40.
Must confess to skipping most of Frodo's journey post the break up of the Fellowship these days. Gets as tedious as Arya's time with the Faceless Men. But LOTR is great to dip into.
It wouldn't be my choice of a book to reread so many times for reasons such as that - and bigger, denser fare generally would be hard to manage.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
LotR is quite light compared to much modern fantasy that's come since.
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
I just got lost with them. I have pretty much the full set and trying again is on my to do list.
I would recommend it. It is a vast world with lots of plots that is created so I can understand getting lost with it, but if you can get into it then I think it is great.
Lord of Chaos I think is my favourite - that ending was powerful as hell. Bit of a drag around books 9-11, but it picks up again. Possibly my favourite high fantasy series.
Absolutely, Lord of Chaos is great. I got into the series by a bit of an accident, one of my friends gave me Lord of Chaos for my birthday without realising it was the 6th book in a series. Had to go to find a library that stocked books 1 to 5 before I could read my present.
10's ok but yeah 9 and 11 were a bit lost. Before and after that though the series makes up for it.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals.
Nope you have it backwards.
Electors = points. Votes = goals.
Having more possession, or even more goals across a season, doesn't win you the title. Having more points does - just like you need more electors.
The country is like a season, the states are like individual games.
Its not enough to just win a few games 8-0 then draw the rest, if your opponent is winning all their games 1-0 they will win the season even if you have more goals.
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals
Search your feelings, Philip_Thompson, you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals.
Nope you have it backwards.
Electors = points. Votes = goals.
Having more possession, or even more goals across a season, doesn't win you the title. Having more points does - just like you need more electors.
The country is like a season, the states are like individual games.
Its not enough to just win a few games 8-0 then draw the rest, if your opponent is winning all their games 1-0 they will win the season even if you have more goals.
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals
Search your feelings, Philip_Thompson, you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
You may wish it to be that way but its not. Electors literally are like points. And like points the electors are determined based on votes on their individual matches (states).
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals.
Nope you have it backwards.
Electors = points. Votes = goals.
Having more possession, or even more goals across a season, doesn't win you the title. Having more points does - just like you need more electors.
The country is like a season, the states are like individual games.
Its not enough to just win a few games 8-0 then draw the rest, if your opponent is winning all their games 1-0 they will win the season even if you have more goals.
Nah!
Votes = points Electors = goals
Search your feelings, Philip_Thompson, you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
You may wish it to be that way but its not. Electors literally are like points. And like points the electors are determined based on votes on their individual matches (states).
Does he know that a great many Archers listeners and Antiques roadshow viewers etc etc are 60+ Tory voters.
Will no one in the Party stop Rasputin in a beanie hat?
I find that I know a lot of Tory and Labour people who have no love of the BBC at all - it's more common with the former, but taking on and changing the BBC in principle won't concern as many people as it might be thought, though who is doing the changing will.
What the hell could Hillary bring to the ticket other than baggage? Her amazing campaigning nous? Her wit? I don't see any upside at all.
More Americans voted for Hillary than for Trump. It was only the fact of the crappy Electoral College system that saved Trump.
No, one candidate understood the rules of the game and one didn't.
The Electoral College system is crappy, end of.
Hillary = 65,853,514 American votes Trump = 62,984,828 American votes
And Liverpool committed more than twice as many fouls as Norwich today. Which made no difference whatsoever, unfortunately.
Votes are like goals. This season's goals scored:
Liverpool 61 Goals Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
Your analogy is a poor one.
Sunil is right. In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system is flawed. Cameron thought the 2005 GE was unrepresentative of the votes cast so decided to address the anomaly. Perfectly sensible.
What's poor about it?
In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system worked as designed by its founders. Because to win you don't need to be the most popular across the country, you need to be the most popular in enough states to win. Piling up votes in large states but ignoring small states is something the founders deliberately designed the system to avoid.
Trump won it fair and square as the rules are written. That isn't to say they don't need amendment in the light of events. It is not always a system for for purpose.
The Founding Fathers put in place the impeachment process to remove an allegedly corrupt President. Some weeks ago it failed only because 250 years later we now encounter people like McConnell who don't give a damn. That process is also no longer fit for purpose, even though it was a good idea at the time.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
Where is the protest?
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone more Liberal than me but there’s more chance of ET landing on your lawn than the rust belt states voting for a gay man .
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
They said that about they wouldn't vote for a black man. They did.
Totally different . Obama was married and straight . There’s zip chance of Buttigieg winning if he’s the Democrat nominee.
Do you seriously think the rust belt states will vote for a gay man . And that’s also going to be an issue in some states the Dems currently hold .
Yet the voters of rust belt state Wisconsin went for a lesbian senator in 2018. And did so in greater numbers than went for Trump in the presidential election of 2016.
Does he know that a great many Archers listeners and Antiques roadshow viewers etc etc are 60+ Tory voters.
Will no one in the Party stop Rasputin in a beanie hat?
I find that I know a lot of Tory and Labour people who have no love of the BBC at all - it's more common with the former, but taking on and changing the BBC in principle won't concern as many people as it might be thought, though who is doing the changing will.
Nevertheless, one assumes that a voluntary fee will cost more than the current license, because there will be considerably fewer people paying it, and the economies forced upon the BBC are unlikely to be able to bridge the gap. Those likely to pay to keep the BBC are significantly less likely to be the Amazon/Netflix generation or even the Sky generation, but will be most pensioners. Leaving aside the question of the over 75s, that’s a lot of core Tory voters who could easily end up paying more.
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
My daughter commented that I had a cheek moaning about Love Island and Orange is the New Black when I was watching a show with a talking polar bear!
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
Where is the protest?
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
I can understand you are annoyed, as many will be, but the BBC have to move with the times and the licence fee is unacceptable in these days of subscription tv and they grossly overpay so called talent with taxpayers money
The BBC is doomed. I wish that were not the case. But it is. No country on earth can continue to poll tax all citizens for a broadcasting service used by a minority. It is nuts.
Worse, the way the BBC is funded makes its drama and story productions uniquely mediocre, as it is so scared of offending anyone, lest they cut its cash flow. Cf the recent His Dark Materials, which was just..... cringe.
Where is the protest?
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
The injustice is that it is a flat tax which all pay but which disproportionately benefits the rich. Move it to general taxation and the problem disappears.
Comments
In fact, if you want to see what the Democratic selectorate looks like across the whole country, you'd be best of looking at Nevada. It overindexes slightly on Hispanic voters, but otherwise looks remarkably like the country as a whole.
It is therefore a perfect opportunity to see how the candidates stack up before we get to Super Tuesday.
Imagine a situation where Donald Trump Jr got 40% of the vote, while Chelsea Clinton got 60%. But because of the electoral college it was DTJr that became President.
I think then that either the country would need to change the electoral college system, or there would be succession. The system has to be seen as fair if it is to continue.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
Plus Presidents are under a lot of pressure. They age - and age fast - while in office. Ageing from 78 in this modern era is a lot.
So, when John Edwards quit the race in 2008 and endorsed Obama, his 14 delegates became Obama's.
It is therefore entirely possible - especially given how fragmented this race is - that Buttigieg and/or Biden endorses Klobuchar (for example) and pushes their delegate total past Sanders.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Search your feelings, DavidL - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Now, it's entirely possible that this was a one-off. Or, perhaps rather, a two-off.
But it's also entirely possible that African Americans in South Carolina will notice that having a candidate who's not, to put it kindly, as sharp as he was in 2008 is not a good idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamad
94 and counting. Of course, it would be most unusual for someone to be physically and mentally capable of very demanding jobs.
But something likeGood Omens? No problem.
But there is something great in discovering a new story for the first time.
Liverpool 61 Goals
Manchester City 65 Goals
Using Sunil's metrics should Manchester City be top of the table?
There is an argument that the intense intellectual stimulation of these jobs can also keep people going longer.
While Sanders now leads with white and Hispanic Democrats, Biden thus still leads with African American Democrats
I've probably read many Wheel of Time Books (especially Eye of the World to Lord of Chaos) about 15 times. I got introduced to it when Lord of Chaos (book 6) was released and after reading the series and realising it was incomplete I re-read the series start to finish a few times and before the release of each subsequent release (until book 14 was released).
Sunil is right. In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system is flawed. Cameron thought the 2005 GE was unrepresentative of the votes cast so decided to address the anomaly. Perfectly sensible.
In 2000 and 2016 the most popular candidate across the country lost because the system worked as designed by its founders. Because to win you don't need to be the most popular across the country, you need to be the most popular in enough states to win. Piling up votes in large states but ignoring small states is something the founders deliberately designed the system to avoid.
The media seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room.
And to be blunt aswell as that the black and Latino populations in the USA are often quite homophobic and are a key part of the Democratic Vote in other states.
It was hilarious to see Trump sounding quite positive about Buttigieg because clearly he knows he’s guaranteed to remain President if he became the nominee.
Search your feelings, Philip_Thompson - you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
Do you seriously think the rust belt states will vote for a gay man . And that’s also going to be an issue in some states the Dems currently hold .
Votes = points
Electors = goals.
Worth noting that United are 4 points behind Sheffield United (though with a game in hand) despite scoring 8 goals more than Sheffield.
Electors = points.
Votes = goals.
Having more possession, or even more goals across a season, doesn't win you the title. Having more points does - just like you need more electors.
The country is like a season, the states are like individual games.
Its not enough to just win a few games 8-0 then draw the rest, if your opponent is winning all their games 1-0 they will win the season even if you have more goals.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
10's ok but yeah 9 and 11 were a bit lost. Before and after that though the series makes up for it.
Votes = points
Electors = goals
Search your feelings, Philip_Thompson, you will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1228806502196051969
Does he know that a great many Archers listeners and Antiques roadshow viewers etc etc are 60+ Tory voters.
Will no one in the Party stop Rasputin in a beanie hat?
And if you think the average Tory voter will thank you for destroying the BBC then you are wrong.
The UK medical establishment sounds pretty convinced we are in for an epidemic in the next couple of months.
If people think the BBC is fantastic why wouldn't they voluntarily subscribe to it? What are you so afraid of?
Right now? Beats me.
Imagine that last 70 years of British life without the BBC.
It is a TV and radio creative desert.
Name your favourite TV shows of the last 30 or 40 years.
Many will back this from the young to the elderly who now have to pay
Then they came for the judges.
The Founding Fathers put in place the impeachment process to remove an allegedly corrupt President. Some weeks ago it failed only because 250 years later we now encounter people like McConnell who don't give a damn. That process is also no longer fit for purpose, even though it was a good idea at the time.
You buy a VOLUNTARY subscription.
If you want to watch the BBC, you should likewise be able to purchase a VOLUNTARY subscription.
It doesn't exist.
The mad Tory Cummings-Beanie-Hat Right have invented yet another massive problem that needs solving that no one else gives a fuck about (other than those who can't afford the TV licence - you can do work on that without destroying the BBC).
And why won't you volunteer to pay for it?
Stop giving Cummings this protection. He is basically the PM.