If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If he's not sci-fi, what is he? Actually, John Wyndham on a more optimally bad virus than this, proper Middle England Apocalypse, would have been interesting to read.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If he's not sci-fi, what is he? Actually, John Wyndham on a more optimally bad virus than this, proper Middle England Apocalypse, would have been interesting to read.
Though not to live through.
Ditto J. G. Ballard - rather surprised to realise he had never done a virus apocalypse novel the other week.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Ah! Thank you. Duly noted to acquire. Haven't tried Tchaikovsky - I do like Banks myself, just personal taste I suppose!
Hannu Rajaniemi is fun, if sometimes mildly incomprehensible.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
He is considered one of the masters of the genre.
My favourite is the Kraken Wakes.
The Chrysalids is the one that hit me at the time, cold war tensions, nasty communists and all that. My doodles at the time were a teddy boy head and a nuclear bomb mushroom. I feel better now.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If he's not sci-fi, what is he? Actually, John Wyndham on a more optimally bad virus than this, proper Middle England Apocalypse, would have been interesting to read.
Though not to live through.
Ditto J. G. Ballard - rather surprised to realise he had never done a virus apocalypse novel the other week.
It practically writes itself, doesn't it - a weird commune of British expats in Spain....
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
A fair number of people think that some of the phonetics indicate a Scots accent. I think so....
It is interesting how virtually none of the front pages are mentioning the 100k tests. Zero credit. I bet if he had announced 90k, it would be front and centre, as a massive failure, heads must roll, etc etc etc.
Regardless of some jiggery-pokery, clearly a lot of people have worked really hard on ramping up the testing capacity. From the army squaddies to the lab tech, etc. They at least deserve a bit of bloody credit.
The Express splashes 100k tests and the Guardian and Telegraph both have it on their front pages while expressing doubts about the precise numbers. The BBC leads on the story. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-52511120
Most of the people questioning the 100k claim, are probably the same people arguing that it was a meaningless/pointless pledge in the first place. The latter which i instinctively agree with, although i suppose it could be said that whilst the value of the 100k tests at present is minimal, and ultimately just a PR thing, the knock on effect of demonstrating the ability to conduct mass testing is important. Having demonstrated the capacity, the challenge shouldn't necessarily be to increase the numbers further, but rather to target the testing more effectively.
Of the two posts at 11.15 making diametrically opposite points, yours is the one I agree with. Very late in the day, the UK has at last put in place significant testing capacity. Now it's a question of using that capacity in an effective prioritised way within an integrated strategy. Provided that is done, the numbers don't really matter and indeed a focus on increasing the numbers further would probably detract from such prioritisation.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
While since I read it but I'm surprised that anyone might have read that into it. Maybe my Scotchiness antennae are a bit rusty.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish(?) accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages...
By contrast, after struggling for the first few pages, I found it fairly quickly became transparent.
After writing that as a joke, it is now starting to annoy me that the CCHQ's crack spin doctors are interfering in so simple a matter, calculating where best on the news grid to place the story. It is the sort of thing that brought Harry and Meghan into disrepute.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
A fair number of people think that some of the phonetics indicate a Scots accent. I think so....
I don't think it is Scottish (whereas big chunks of The Bridge definitely are).
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish(?) accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages...
By contrast, after struggling for the first few pages, I found it fairly quickly became transparent.
It is an interesting divide - those who find reading it aloud in their head (as it were) easy or fun and those who don't
Mind you, reading silently may or may not be a modern invention.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
A fair number of people think that some of the phonetics indicate a Scots accent. I think so....
I don't think it is Scottish (whereas big chunks of The Bridge definitely are).
I think Banks stuck on the M. to differentiate between the two types of books.
Though on checking Wiki The Wasp Factory was written by Iain M. Banks then the M. was removed. It was restored for the SF books.
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
Edit: When the one character looked at the code and was physically sick, I commented to my other half that it must be written in PHP. I just got a pitying look.
The whole phonetic Scottish accent thing got a bit boring after the first few pages.
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
Not a Scots accent I think, don't think there is any connection with Scotland (unlike quite a bit of his non-SF work).
A fair number of people think that some of the phonetics indicate a Scots accent. I think so....
I don't think it is Scottish (whereas big chunks of The Bridge definitely are).
I think Banks stuck on the M. to differentiate between the two types of books.
Though on checking Wiki The Wasp Factory was written by Iain M. Banks then the M. was removed. It was restored for the SF books.
I was thinking The Bridge was sci fi but of course it isn't cos it's all a dream.
Hmmm...an article by one Liz Peek, an occasional contributor to Fox Business and Fox & Friends, whose "...son Andrew Peek, Donald Trump's Europe and Russia adviser, was abruptly removed from his position as Head of European and Russian Affairs at the NSC and is currently under federal investigation." I wonder why such a person would want Clinton, who energises Trump's base more than anyone, back as candidate, and why she would describe Biden's campaign, currently leading in Texas of all places according to one recent poll, as "failing"?
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
Hilary or Biden look like attempts to re-elect Donald Trump.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
More Americans voted for Hillary in 2016...
Hillary suffered the biggest EC defeat for any Democrat since Michael Dukakis in 1988
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
You are probably right about Hillary, and that Peek is not a disinterested reporter. On Biden, and indeed Trump, there is a non-negligible possibility either could drop out before November, although at 2.4 on Betfair, Biden might have been oversold but in truth I find this presidential election hard to make sense of. For the record, currently Democrats are favourites to win (1.92) but Trump is favourite to be next president (2.08).
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Squeaky bum time for the layers, though tbh the case presented looks weak and the other possible replacements could probably spin a similar story, except for Bernie Sanders who might rely on already having the delegates.
Hilary is the dream opponent for Trump. Democrats know it. In her heart Hilary knows it. If Biden is so crap, why did Trump try take the risk of getting a foreign power to frame him? That Trump can beat Hilary has been proven. That's why Fox commentators like Liz Peek here are pumping her.
More Americans voted for Hillary in 2016...
Hillary suffered the biggest EC defeat for any Democrat since Michael Dukakis in 1988
The EC is just a way for popular vote losers to steal the Presidency!
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Hubert Humphrey narrowly won Texas in 1968 despite losing nationally to Nixon.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Hubert Humphrey narrowly won Texas in 1968 despite losing nationally to Nixon.
Yes but Nixon also won California, there is no doubt Biden will win California if he has won Texas
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Hubert Humphrey narrowly won Texas in 1968 despite losing nationally to Nixon.
Yes but Nixon also won California, there is no doubt Biden will win California if he has won Texas
I agree. Nixon also carried Illinois in 1968 - not really imaginable now! Obama also carried North Carolina in 2008.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Hubert Humphrey narrowly won Texas in 1968 despite losing nationally to Nixon.
Yes but Nixon also won California, there is no doubt Biden will win California if he has won Texas
I agree. Nixon also carried Illinois in 1968 - not really imaginable now! Obama also carried North Carolina in 2008.
Indeed, the GOP were still largely a Western and Midwestern party until Reagan and Bush. Nixon's southern strategy won him the South in 1972 but Carter won the South back again for the Democrats in 1976
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
Even WJ Clinton didn't win North Carolina but he won Kentucky, West Virginia and some others that would be hard to imagine now. Both Clinton's wins have the asterisk saying that the traditionalist vote was split, thought he still won over 50% in WV! But the last election was really tight in a lot more states, with a lot more electoral votes won by 0-2% or 0-3%, compared to the 80s or 90s. Probably the parties have more data and more capacity to spend where it matters.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I'd imagine the Special City territory of Seoul and the Stadtstaaten of Berlin are more densely populated than England, not sure if that proves anything.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I think what matters is ultra-dense areas, like much of London, Milan and New York City. Places where people live in apartments and flats, and where people travel on crowded subways and buses.
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
North-Rhine Westphalia, where the first outbreak in Germany was, has a higher population density than England.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I think what matters is ultra-dense areas, like much of London, Milan and New York City. Places where people live in apartments and flats, and where people travel on crowded subways and buses.
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
Have you ever been on a train in the north? Packed in like sardines most of the time.
On the morning papers, someone appears to be briefing in order to hurt the government. Suggesting a reduction of social distancing when the vast majority don’t want to even entertain it is designed to wound them. All it would do is create a massive social divide and compel many to stay indoors. I wonder if it’s a malcontent in cabinet or outside.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
North-Rhine Westphalia, where the first outbreak in Germany was, has a higher population density than England.
Population density North-Rhine Westphalia 530/sq km: South East England 1171/sq km, London 4542/sq km. So London and the South East, similar population to NRW, much greater population density.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
He is considered one of the masters of the genre.
My favourite is the Kraken Wakes.
Midwich Cuckoos for me, although I was introduced to him via radio adaptation of The Trifids on the World Service.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
North-Rhine Westphalia, where the first outbreak in Germany was, has a higher population density than England.
Population density North-Rhine Westphalia 530/sq km: South East England 1171/sq km, London 4542/sq km. So London and the South East, similar population to NRW, much greater population density.
Yeah, but there are large parts of South East England with population density barely more than 100/sq mile (like South Cambridgeshire), and there are parts at with 100x the density.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
He is considered one of the masters of the genre.
My favourite is the Kraken Wakes.
Midwich Cuckoos for me, although I was introduced to him via radio adaptation of The Trifids on the World Service.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I think what matters is ultra-dense areas, like much of London, Milan and New York City. Places where people live in apartments and flats, and where people travel on crowded subways and buses.
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
Have you ever been on a train in the north? Packed in like sardines most of the time.
On the morning papers, someone appears to be briefing in order to hurt the government. Suggesting a reduction of social distancing when the vast majority don’t want to even entertain it is designed to wound them. All it would do is create a massive social divide and compel many to stay indoors. I wonder if it’s a malcontent in cabinet or outside.
Commuter trains are basically the only thing I'm worried about in returning to work.
Why?
Men (it is always men) don't cover their mouths when coughing. I can't remember how many times I've been coughed over by someone sitting in a seat 18 inches behind me.
I've tried a very British tut and "look". It doesn't work very often.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I think what matters is ultra-dense areas, like much of London, Milan and New York City. Places where people live in apartments and flats, and where people travel on crowded subways and buses.
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
And yet Hong Kong, the most densely populated place on earth, has had a total of 5 deaths.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
North-Rhine Westphalia, where the first outbreak in Germany was, has a higher population density than England.
Population density North-Rhine Westphalia 530/sq km: South East England 1171/sq km, London 4542/sq km. So London and the South East, similar population to NRW, much greater population density.
Yeah, but there are large parts of South East England with population density barely more than 100/sq mile (like South Cambridgeshire), and there are parts at with 100x the density.
Population density of the city state Berlin 3944 per sq km
Population density of Bavaria 184 per sq km
Last time I checked Bavaria had about 4x more Covid deaths per million..
The worst-hit province in Italy is Bergamo, population density 400 per sq km.
Just looking at the population density of a country or region is way too crude a measure.
Good morning everyone. BBC reports that the Irish government is relaxing restrictions somewhat from Tuesday. Doesn't look as though pubs will be open for at least another month, though.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
I think what matters is ultra-dense areas, like much of London, Milan and New York City. Places where people live in apartments and flats, and where people travel on crowded subways and buses.
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
And yet Hong Kong, the most densely populated place on earth, has had a total of 5 deaths.
If every wears a face mask ... it's a no brainer.
A comination of face masks - and clubbing public coughers to death with 3m long shillelaghs. That should restore public life.
If people are looking for something more terrifying than our current grim circumstances to serve as a distraction, they could do worse than this book I'm currently reading - not content with being post apocalyptic, it's post apocalyptic sci fi with giant, sentient spiders. Cheery.
OH, what is it? I'm on Banks's Algebraist myself - giant, sentient planktike echinoderm-analogues.
Children of Time by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It might well turn out to be a hopeful story, but I just loved how the reference on the back to 'mankind's worst nightmare' was not, as I thought, mere colourful language.
Have to admit I've never gotten into Banks. I read Consider Phlebas and thought it ok, and read Excession after rave reviews on here, but thought it was crap.
Been trying to read more sci-fi this year though. Neal Asher was fun, and I finally read the Foundation trilogy.
Banks is tough to get into - and rather un-even. Use of Weapons is a fascinating construction, though.
No prizes for guessing my favourite Banks book :-) In other news I've just finished watching Devs. Amazing imagery, slow plot in places, and requires substantial suspension of physical reality, but entertaining and a reasonably satisfying ending.
I loved John Wyndham as a lad. Does that count as sci-fi now?
If he's not sci-fi, what is he? Actually, John Wyndham on a more optimally bad virus than this, proper Middle England Apocalypse, would have been interesting to read.
Though not to live through.
Consider Her Ways comes close to that, and it is indeed quite interesting, ending on a typical Wyndham cliffhanger.
You might also have mentioned the damage done by a plague in The Day of the Triffids, although it was at best a subplot.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
If they nominate her again then it is time for the world’s second oldest political party to pack up and go home, and let a new party made up of people with ability and sanity take on the Republicans.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
If they nominate her again then it is time for the world’s second oldest political party to pack up and go home, and let a new party made up of people with ability and sanity take on the Republicans.
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
If the winner is a white man, probably. If not ...... I'm not so sure!
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Shouldn't be comparing regions with states, should one?
I don't think the fact that hardly anyone lives in an large swathes of Scotland and Wales should deflect us from just how densely populated England is, particularly southern England. And population density is the biggest problem as far as the virus is concerned.
North-Rhine Westphalia, where the first outbreak in Germany was, has a higher population density than England.
Population density North-Rhine Westphalia 530/sq km: South East England 1171/sq km, London 4542/sq km. So London and the South East, similar population to NRW, much greater population density.
Yeah, but there are large parts of South East England with population density barely more than 100/sq mile (like South Cambridgeshire), and there are parts at with 100x the density.
Population density of the city state Berlin 3944 per sq km
Population density of Bavaria 184 per sq km
Last time I checked Bavaria had about 4x more Covid deaths per million..
The worst-hit province in Italy is Bergamo, population density 400 per sq km.
Just looking at the population density of a country or region is way too crude a measure.
At the same time, it takes more time to get from Berlin to some parts of Bavaria, than Bavaria to Ishgl. Location matters.
And how many of Bavaria's cases were in greater Munich (population six million), and how many were in the hinterlands?
Density matters. Bergamo, province, contains Bergamo, city. The former is a lot more dense than the latter. New York State contains Manhattan. Ditto.
It's a complex problem.
But crowded cities, with apartment blocks and metros and buses mean people come into close physical contact with many more people.
Sure, some will - for one reason or another - avoid serious problems. But they are the exceptions, not the rule.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
He won’t win Texas but it would interesting to know the last time a Democrat recorded a lead with a major pollster there.
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
The last Democrat to win Texas was Carter in 1976, it would be a Biden landslide if he took the Lone Star state certainly given California is now safe Democrat but voted for Ford back then
Hubert Humphrey narrowly won Texas in 1968 despite losing nationally to Nixon.
Yes but Nixon also won California, there is no doubt Biden will win California if he has won Texas
I agree. Nixon also carried Illinois in 1968 - not really imaginable now! Obama also carried North Carolina in 2008.
Indeed, the GOP were still largely a Western and Midwestern party until Reagan and Bush. Nixon's southern strategy won him the South in 1972 but Carter won the South back again for the Democrats in 1976
That's in part due to the Nixon admin implementing various Federal policies such as stripping charitable status from racist segregationist colleges.
This was the start of the bloc evangelical vote. The GOP saw what happened and steered them on board.
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
Just as many Californians liberals - and New York times journalists - have not accepted Trump as President.
The reality is that the militias won't like a Democrat President, but armed insurrection against an elected leader is a step not taken lightly.
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
They won't let it get that far. They will be out "protesting election fraud" on election day and disrupting the vote in Democrat areas. Trump wins on the resulting low turnout.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
Just as many Californians liberals - and New York times journalists - have not accepted Trump as President.
The reality is that the militias won't like a Democrat President, but armed insurrection against an elected leader is a step not taken lightly.
I don’t think the militias have ever felt actively encouraged and supported by a US President before. I guess much will depend on how Trump reacts to a defeat. He’ll still have close to a quarter of a year in control after election day.
Small interesting snippet: for the first time ever the number of registered Independents has exceeded the number of registered Republicans in the US.
Now, the change from 2016 is small - Republicans have gone from a 1.5% lead to a 0.2% deficit - but it should nevertheless be concerning for the party that they've gone from 34% when Bush Jr was elected to 29% today.
It's also a reminder not to take "Trump remains popular with registered Republicans" too seriously.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
If the Democrats can flip the Senate - big if - then a Trump presidency becomes far, far less dangerous to the US and the rest of us.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Yes, I too was shocked that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana failed to even get on the ballot in Texas.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all...
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
Per that poll Republicans don't seem to like their Senator, he only gets 54.8 approval compared to 82.9% for Trump. So I wouldn't read that as "Biden underperforms other Dems".
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement
So leading that, when he was elected Junior Senator for Illinois, I hadn't heard of him.
Indeed, I heard of him only when he gave an (excellent) speech at Kerry's nomination.
A speech that referenced the Iraq war approximately no times at all.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
Just idly wondering how Boris would poll if he we were the Dem candidate facing Trump.....
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
How many times this season has Biden been written off? And yet he comes back.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all...
Yeah, he might at least have run for one.
I’m confusing him with O’Rourke, aren’t I?
It illustrates my point beautifully even if it’s a bit embarrassing...
Those armed militiamen walking around the Michigan capitol with their semi-automatics. If Trump does manage to lose in November, does anyone believe they and their mates elsewhere in the US will just shrug their shoulders and accept it?
Just as many Californians liberals - and New York times journalists - have not accepted Trump as President.
The reality is that the militias won't like a Democrat President, but armed insurrection against an elected leader is a step not taken lightly.
I don’t think the militias have ever felt actively encouraged and supported by a US President before. I guess much will depend on how Trump reacts to a defeat. He’ll still have close to a quarter of a year in control after election day.
Biden is probably more tolerable than them than Hillary Clinton.
Biden doesn't stir the culture war pot in quite the same way she did.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
If the Democrats can flip the Senate - big if - then a Trump presidency becomes far, far less dangerous to the US and the rest of us.
Only moderately, if they don't have enough votes to impeach, he doesn't care what the voters think any more, and the Supreme Court is on his side, he has enormous scope to break things. Their best hope would be that he'd be preoccupied with stealing.
The effect of a national lockdown in response to COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of clinical symptoms in the population https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20076000v1 ... The vast and rapid spread of COVID-19 calls for immediate action from policy-makers and in many countries, various lockdown measures were implemented. Here, we utilized nationwide surveys that assess COVID-19 associated symptoms to analyse the effect of the lockdown policy in Israel on the prevalence of clinical symptoms in the population. Daily symptom surveys were distributed online and included fever, respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia and Ageusia. A total of 1,003,298 surveys were filled out to date. We used a single measure of symptoms, Symptoms Ratio (SR), defined as a weighted mean of symptoms found to be prevalent in COVID-19 patients. Notably, following severe lockdown measures, we found that between March 15 and April 22, the mean SR sharply declined by 78.9%, as did every individual symptom, including our most common symptoms of cough and rhinorrhea or nasal congestion, which decreased from 14.5% and 13.8% of the survey responders, respectively, to 2.4% and 2.5%. We also observed reduction in symptoms separately in the vast majority of cities in Israel. Overall, these results demonstrate a profound decrease in a variety of clinical symptoms following the implementation of a lockdown in Israel. As our survey symptoms are not specific to COVID-19 infection, this effect likely represents an overall nationwide reduction in the prevalence of infectious diseases, including COVID-19. This quantification may be of major interest for COVID-19 pandemic, as many countries consider implementation of lockdown strategies....
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Yes, I too was shocked that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana failed to even get on the ballot in Texas.
Though, to be fair, I’ve forgotten the other guy’s name, too.
Is he really 'struggling'? At the moment he is polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton.
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
The interesting one there is North Carolina where Biden is +7, but the Democrats are +10 in the Senate race and +20 for the Governor.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
If the Democrats can flip the Senate - big if - then a Trump presidency becomes far, far less dangerous to the US and the rest of us.
Currently 53:47 (roughly). Given the VP has the casting vote, the Dems would need to win net four and not win the Presidency.
Colorado, Maine - R to D, probably comfortably. (Poor Susan Collins.)
Alabama - D to R, probably comfortably. (Although if the Republicans choose Sessions, who knows...)
So, it's now 52:48.
Arizona - possible D pickup. Likewise North Carolina.
Kentucky and Montana are theoretically possible, as Mitch is unpopular in the former, and the popular Dem ex-Governor is running in the latter.
But for the Dems to win three of Arizona, North Carolina, Kentucky and Montana is a MASSIVE stretch.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Yes, I too was shocked that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana failed to even get on the ballot in Texas.
Though, to be fair, I’ve forgotten the other guy’s name, too.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all...
Yeah, he might at least have run for one.
I’m confusing him with O’Rourke, aren’t I?
It illustrates my point beautifully even if it’s a bit embarrassing...
O'Rourke was a successful and popular congressman who ran a sitting Senator in a deeply Red state very close.
Buttigieg, on the other hand, was nearly the Democratic nominee.
Beto O’Rourke reminded me of the NME review of River Of Dreams, which noted that Billy Joel now had earned complete artistic freedom, only to find out that he had nothing to say.
On topic, it’s a mark of (a) how poor a candidate Biden is and (b) how stupid some Dems are that Clinton’s name is even being mentioned as a potential nominee.
It's not a mark of either of those things, because the person writing this isn't a Dem, is highly unlikely to have the Dems' best interests at heart, and wasn't able to find a single Dem to quote who would say something positive about her terrible idea.
I am aware of that in this particular case, but she’s been far from the only one. The BBC ran an article claiming Clinton was being urged to run in November. Sanders supporters were getting all het up at the thought she was trying to undermine him prior to a comeback just two months ago. Alex Seitz-Wald, hardly a Tea Party activist, was describing her as a kingmaker even when he noted she wasn’t officially running.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
They've got loads of people better than Hillary Clinton. Biden is better, so would have been Buttigieg, Harris, Delaney, Booker, Warren, Bullock, O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Inslee and of course KLOBUCHAR. These people didn't have big roles in Obama's administration but neither did Barack Obama or Bill Clinton have a role in the previous Dem administration. It's not important.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
Obama had been a leading figure in the anti-Iraq war movement. Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Yes, I too was shocked that the Mayor of South Bend Indiana failed to even get on the ballot in Texas.
Though, to be fair, I’ve forgotten the other guy’s name, too.
Comments
The end of the Use of Weapons mirrors the interlocking structure of the book - who is using whom as a weapon?
My favourite is the Kraken Wakes.
Actually, John Wyndham on a more optimally bad virus than this, proper Middle England Apocalypse, would have been interesting to read.
Though not to live through.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-52511120
On that topic, a pointed anecdote...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/01/asia-pacific/vietnam-coronavirus-outbreak-contained/
... In late February, as U.S. President Donald Trump was still downplaying the dangers of the new coronavirus, Viet and his colleagues began sourcing crucial components needed to mass produce COVID-19 testing kits from the United States and Germany....
It appears that Vietnam’s numbers are genuine.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/495371-as-biden-struggles-hillary-waits-for-the-call
Mind you, reading silently may or may not be a modern invention.
Though on checking Wiki The Wasp Factory was written by Iain M. Banks then the M. was removed. It was restored for the SF books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Peek
What about exotic Fluorine compounds?
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/10/21/things_i_wont_work_with_triazadienyl_fluoride
"Weep for the future, Na'Toth. Weep for us all."
The below are all states Hillary lost to Trump, Biden leads in 2/3 of them and is 1% behind in Georgia which is closer than Obama got to Mccain or Romney in the state
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256278107666907137?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256230902298021889?s=19
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1256232224522997763?s=19
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2020/04/30/exclusive-warning-over-chinese-mobile-giant-xiaomi-recording-millions-of-peoples-private-web-and-phone-use/#5941a6191b2a
PPP has Biden +1 in TX
Obama also carried North Carolina in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
At least one could believe the Sun readership actually represented a major chunk of the population in Maggie's day.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1256381257052815360?s=20
Once you leave places like that, then social distancing becomes relatively easy.
On the morning papers, someone appears to be briefing in order to hurt the government. Suggesting a reduction of social distancing when the vast majority don’t want to even entertain it is designed to wound them. All it would do is create a massive social divide and compel many to stay indoors. I wonder if it’s a malcontent in cabinet or outside.
Why?
Men (it is always men) don't cover their mouths when coughing. I can't remember how many times I've been coughed over by someone sitting in a seat 18 inches behind me.
I've tried a very British tut and "look". It doesn't work very often.
If every wears a face mask ... it's a no brainer.
Population density of Bavaria 184 per sq km
Last time I checked Bavaria had about 4x more Covid deaths per million..
The worst-hit province in Italy is Bergamo, population density 400 per sq km.
Just looking at the population density of a country or region is way too crude a measure.
BBC reports that the Irish government is relaxing restrictions somewhat from Tuesday. Doesn't look as though pubs will be open for at least another month, though.
You might also have mentioned the damage done by a plague in The Day of the Triffids, although it was at best a subplot.
If they nominate her again then it is time for the world’s second oldest political party to pack up and go home, and let a new party made up of people with ability and sanity take on the Republicans.
Hillary is widely disliked.
2016 was a fairly damning indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, that they couldn’t come up with anyone better than Clinton. 2020 is if anything even worse. Neither Biden nor Sanders should have been within a million miles of the nomination. They’re both totally unfit to be President, and that’s not to overlook the obvious that Trump is even less fit to be President. If Biden wins, he may be less malicious than Trump but he is unlikely to be less erratic or more competent.
I’m afraid Obama does shoulder a large share of the blame here, by his reliance on a coterie of old stagers - Clinton, Kerry, Biden - for senior roles rather than bringing on younger talent. But at the same time and allowing for that it’s just ridiculous that anybody could look at Biden or Sanders and seriously think of them as potential Presidents.
Not that we can talk given we had a choice between Johnson and Corbyn, but still.
If the BBC were doing a thing on Hillary for 2020 that isn't an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the Dems, it's an indictment of the sterility and exhaustion of the BBC. End the licence fee.
And how many of Bavaria's cases were in greater Munich (population six million), and how many were in the hinterlands?
Density matters. Bergamo, province, contains Bergamo, city. The former is a lot more dense than the latter. New York State contains Manhattan. Ditto.
It's a complex problem.
But crowded cities, with apartment blocks and metros and buses mean people come into close physical contact with many more people.
Sure, some will - for one reason or another - avoid serious problems. But they are the exceptions, not the rule.
You can probably discount the latter because the Democrat is the incumbent there, but the Senate poll suggests that Biden isn't polling well compared to other Democrats.
This was the start of the bloc evangelical vote. The GOP saw what happened and steered them on board.
The reality is that the militias won't like a Democrat President, but armed insurrection against an elected leader is a step not taken lightly.
What have those you named, other than Biden, done to raise their profile to the point where a run seemed credible? Buttigieg, for example, had failed to win a senate seat in Texas. That really says it all.
And while I would agree Biden is a better candidate than Clinton, that is a bit like saying Corbyn is less racist than Le Pen. It’s not really a helpful point of comparison.
Now, the change from 2016 is small - Republicans have gone from a 1.5% lead to a 0.2% deficit - but it should nevertheless be concerning for the party that they've gone from 34% when Bush Jr was elected to 29% today.
It's also a reminder not to take "Trump remains popular with registered Republicans" too seriously.
So leading that, when he was elected Junior Senator for Illinois, I hadn't heard of him.
Indeed, I heard of him only when he gave an (excellent) speech at Kerry's nomination.
A speech that referenced the Iraq war approximately no times at all.
Not convinced by the linked article.
It illustrates my point beautifully even if it’s a bit embarrassing...
Biden doesn't stir the culture war pot in quite the same way she did.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.27.20076000v1
... The vast and rapid spread of COVID-19 calls for immediate action from policy-makers and in many countries, various lockdown measures were implemented. Here, we utilized nationwide surveys that assess COVID-19 associated symptoms to analyse the effect of the lockdown policy in Israel on the prevalence of clinical symptoms in the population. Daily symptom surveys were distributed online and included fever, respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, anosmia and Ageusia. A total of 1,003,298 surveys were filled out to date. We used a single measure of symptoms, Symptoms Ratio (SR), defined as a weighted mean of symptoms found to be prevalent in COVID-19 patients. Notably, following severe lockdown measures, we found that between March 15 and April 22, the mean SR sharply declined by 78.9%, as did every individual symptom, including our most common symptoms of cough and rhinorrhea or nasal congestion, which decreased from 14.5% and 13.8% of the survey responders, respectively, to 2.4% and 2.5%. We also observed reduction in symptoms separately in the vast majority of cities in Israel. Overall, these results demonstrate a profound decrease in a variety of clinical symptoms following the implementation of a lockdown in Israel. As our survey symptoms are not specific to COVID-19 infection, this effect likely represents an overall nationwide reduction in the prevalence of infectious diseases, including COVID-19. This quantification may be of major interest for COVID-19 pandemic, as many countries consider implementation of lockdown strategies....
Colorado, Maine - R to D, probably comfortably. (Poor Susan Collins.)
Alabama - D to R, probably comfortably. (Although if the Republicans choose Sessions, who knows...)
So, it's now 52:48.
Arizona - possible D pickup. Likewise North Carolina.
Kentucky and Montana are theoretically possible, as Mitch is unpopular in the former, and the popular Dem ex-Governor is running in the latter.
But for the Dems to win three of Arizona, North Carolina, Kentucky and Montana is a MASSIVE stretch.
Buttigieg, on the other hand, was nearly the Democratic nominee.
Not sorry...