politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The events sparked off by theGeorge Floyd murder have had a bi

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The events sparked off by theGeorge Floyd murder have had a big impact the the Dems VP nominee betting

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

kyf_100

First

MaxPB

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

LostPassword

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

RochdalePioneers

Glad to see that Max doesn't get it. We need the kids back full time. Unless social distancing is scrapped they cannot go back full time. Half sized classes means we need double the number of teachers, and Max wants them sacked. For following the directives issued to them by the government. Bravo sir. Glad that you have my children's best interests at heart

rottenborough

I'm thinking Susan Rice looks a good tip still even at 10.

I'm on at a ridiculous 340/1

RochdalePioneers

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

I suspect the reality is simple. By September we will have 5--6m unemployed with the curtailing of furlough. If your employee can't do the job full time you'll be able to have your pick of alternative candidates.

Nigelb

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

So what you’re angry with is the government now ?

rottenborough

Lockdown until Christmas?

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272275681053945856/photo/1

Philip_Thompson

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

I wouldn't fine parents. Let them make a choice. If a parent wants to homeschool at this time let them. Quite frankly the more who do, the easier the schooling distancing etc will be for everyone else. Let people choose, those who want to go back to school should absolutely be able to but I see no reason to compel others to do so.

But then I don't believe in fining parents at the best of times. Its nanny state nonsense.

Beibheirli_C

rottenborough said:

Lockdown until Christmas?

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272275681053945856/photo/1

With this shower - lockdown forever

DeClare

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Beibheirli_C

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

ClippP

RochdalePioneers said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

I suspect the reality is simple. By September we will have 5--6m unemployed with the curtailing of furlough. If your employee can't do the job full time you'll be able to have your pick of alternative candidates.

Good Conservative policy that... Become a slave, do everything the boss says, even at the risk of your life..... Or starve to death, because you failed to be totally subservient and employable....

Stuartinromford

rottenborough said:

Lockdown until Christmas?

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272275681053945856/photo/1

And that's the heart of the matter. Getting contact tracing to work is fairly basic competence. So are most of the things the government has fumbled. As a result, there are enough infections happening out there to delay a return to normality.

Not a cheerful thought before bedtime, but I've got homeschooling to do tomorrow. Night night.

Philip_Thompson

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Susan Rice seems an all round better pick than Harris.

rcs1000

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

rottenborough

Philip_Thompson said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Susan Rice seems an all round better pick than Harris.

Although she doesn't bring a state with her.

Philip_Thompson

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Susan Rice seems an all round better pick than Harris.

Although she doesn't bring a state with her.

Neither does Harris so that's moot.

rottenborough

Rice now at 8.8

10 half an hour ago.

Philip_Thompson

Amusingly after this morning's conversation about Google missing Churchill's image, its interesting to see two candidates image missing in the thread header. Not sure which website this is a screengrab from or who provides the imagery, but it goes to the point that these things regularly happen - its only at heightened moments of tension people notice it and suddenly it seems a conspiracy.

NickPalmer

Philip_Thompson said:

I wouldn't fine parents. Let them make a choice. If a parent wants to homeschool at this time let them. Quite frankly the more who do, the easier the schooling distancing etc will be for everyone else. Let people choose, those who want to go back to school should absolutely be able to but I see no reason to compel others to do so.

But then I don't believe in fining parents at the best of times. Its nanny state nonsense.

On the whole I agree in this situation. Home schooling isn't ideal but with an effort it can be made to work. The dilemma is if you've got an external manual job and/or you're not very well-educated yourself, but you're scared for your kids - do you choose to send them in and maybe get ill, or stay at home and maybe miss out on proper education? Horrible dilemma. and although one can say "Well, leave it to the parents to decide", it's tough as the experts don't really have certain info, let alone the average parent.

SandyRentool

Philip_Thompson said:

Amusingly after this morning's conversation about Google missing Churchill's image, its interesting to see two candidates image missing in the thread header. Not sure which website this is a screengrab from or who provides the imagery, but it goes to the point that these things regularly happen - its only at heightened moments of tension people notice it and suddenly it seems a conspiracy.

Lance Bottoms was probably blocked by a dodgy content filter.

Night all.

rottenborough

eadric said:

Here we go

https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

https://twitter.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1272131421830873090

RobD

eadric said:

Here we go

https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

Second wave incoming.

Richard_Tyndall

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

Which the parents will then quite rightly refuse to pay. What you going to do, throw them all in jail? Any Government forcing parents to send their kids back to school when they are not certain it is safe has already lost the next election whether it is in a week, a year or a decade.

Charles

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Because she is black enough to appeal to minorities (in the view of an elderly white politician) without being back enough to scare off white voters.

Or something. Personally I reckon she’s wooden and a poor politician who would be a disastrous choice

kinabalu

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more of a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

LostPassword

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

Which the parents will then quite rightly refuse to pay. What you going to do, throw them all in jail? Any Government forcing parents to send their kids back to school when they are not certain it is safe has already lost the next election whether it is in a week, a year or a decade.

Indeed.

In normal circumstance it is nanny state nonsense fining parents who want to take their children out of school for a holiday, seeing the world will teach children more than a few days missed of school.

Its insanity to fine parents who fear to send their children to school and want to homeschool. That's just madness.

I'd rather see fines abolished permanently than increased. Make sure the schools are open for those who want to go back, that has to be the #1 priority.

Richard_Tyndall

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

What you need to accept is that it is possible it gets no better than this. There may be no effective vaccine and we may just have to learn to live with the act that this killer is still active.

MrEd

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Fishing

eadric said:

RobD said:

eadric said:

Here we go

https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

Second wave incoming.

Or a second lockdown

https://twitter.com/LouisWPLG/status/1272286221063147522?s=20

Or both.

Interesting that Florida had a law which banned wearing masks, originally aimed at the KKK, till it was struck down in 1980.

FrancisUrquhart

eadric said:

Here we go

twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

West Coast cities seeing large increases as well.

Andy_JS

Interview with American writer Coleman Hughes, (on the Triggernometry channel).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA

kyf_100

Fishing said:

eadric said:

RobD said:

eadric said:

Here we go

https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

Second wave incoming.

Or a second lockdown

https://twitter.com/LouisWPLG/status/1272286221063147522?s=20

Or both.

Interesting that Florida had a law which banned wearing masks, originally aimed at the KKK, till it was struck down in 1980.

Or we just admit that lockdowns don't work in a liberal democracy.

You get the worst of both worlds. The businesses and establishments that are forced to close, thus destroying the economy, while the people mingle freely because to lock them up would be against our values.

MrEd

FrancisUrquhart said:

eadric said:

Here we go

twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1272245604123631616?s=20

West Coast cities seeing large increases as well.

Which the Trump campaign, and states like Florida, will blame on the BLM movement and say that all the talk about "systemic racism" being a worse disease than CV has reignited the spike in cases and now raises fears of a second lockdown.

rottenborough

eadric said:

We are being trolled by history

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1272287620287078401?s=20

What the actual f happens in our schools?

Foxy

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Its still the first wave, I think.

rottenborough

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Europe has unlocked but is it keeping the social distance up (as in the 1.5 - 2m)?

One theory is that is what matters more than anything else.

Foxy

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Andy_JS

rottenborough said:

eadric said:

We are being trolled by history

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1272287620287078401?s=20

What the actual f happens in our schools?

Read anything by Katharine Birbalsingh to find out.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1272191356845391875

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1271545567219499009

dixiedean

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Cos they never had the virus under any kind of control?
America really has the worst of all worlds. Virus rampant. An uneven, half hearted lockdown. Which ended before it took effect. 10's of millions on the Dole with no health insurance. Rising infections. Half the population not really believing it. A President out of his depth.

LostPassword

eadric said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

What you need to accept is that it is possible it gets no better than this. There may be no effective vaccine and we may just have to learn to live with the act that this killer is still active.

Yes, exactly. People have adjusted to hideous new diseases in the past. We adjusted to the Blitz. We adjusted to terrorism.

Sometimes there is an enemy who cannot be quickly defeated, if ever, and you simply have to accept increased risk. You cannot hide away in perpetuity.

If you take effective action in the short term then the virus is gone and you don't have to hide.

If you don't take effective action then you're left to lurch on in some sort of horrific limbo, unable to return to normal because of the threat of death, and the absurd economy-destroying rules imposed to partially inhibit its spread, but also not free of the virus.

Why would you want the worst of both worlds?

FrancisUrquhart

Foxy said:

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Its still the first wave, I think.

West Coast cities locked down early and hard, now opening up and big protests and seeing a spike. I think it is just first wave that has been delayed by the early lockdown.

And of course the big exception to big protests / opening up and no sign of increase, New York. It is like you hit 20-25% of people getting it and it starts to become hard for it to spread.

RobD

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1272191356845391875

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1271545567219499009

Epidemiologists will be studying this event for decades to come.

FrancisUrquhart

eadric said:

rottenborough said:

eadric said:

We are being trolled by history

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1272287620287078401?s=20

What the actual f happens in our schools?

Well, she certainly hasn't been indoctrinated with self-aggrandising British imperial history, because she doesn't have a fucking clue who Churchill even is

He's that annoying dog off the telly ads right?

rottenborough

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1272267210334011393?s=20

FrancisUrquhart

There is "much more that we need to do" to tackle racism but the UK should not try to "re-write the past" by removing historical symbols, the PM has said.

Writing in the Telegraph, Boris Johnson said he was setting up a commission to look at all "aspects of inequality".

He said "no-one who cares about this country" could ignore the anti-racist demonstrations sparked by the killing of George Floyd in US police custody.

However, he added the UK's heritage should be left "broadly in peace".

He said their mission was "utterly absurd" but he added that it was "deplorable" that Sir Winston Churchill's statue had been in danger of attack.

Mr Johnson said that "the serious points" being raised by the anti-racist demonstrators should be taken seriously.

However, he said that did not mean "wasting time" disputing the life and opinions of "every historical personality currently immortalised in bronze or stone".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53045349

I don't think that mob are going to be happy with this, especially the last paragraph I quoted. I think there will be a lot of outrage in the tw@ttersphere about the PM dismissing (as they see it) abhorrent historic acts as people just wasting time.

williamglenn

FrancisUrquhart said:

And of course the big exception to big protests / opening up and no sign of increase, New York. It is like you hit 20-25% of people getting it and it starts to become hard for it to spread.

The people who get it in the initial wave are probably disproportionately those who are frequent users of public transport etc, so the 'front line' level of herd immunity could be higher than the raw figures suggest.

Pulpstar

Foxy said:

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Its still the first wave, I think.

The virus moves in mysterious ways. Professional wrestling has been deemed "essential" in Florida..

Fishing

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

I estimate 4-5k extra deaths in the long run for each percentage point of foregone economic growth, based on a couple of American studies. In the short run, economic collapse might reduce mortality by reducing car accidents etc.

So the 20% fall in economic output, if sustained for a year, would cause 80-100k premature deaths, most likely concentrated amongst lower socio-economic groups.

Just a back of the envelope bit of fun.

FrancisUrquhart

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1272267210334011393?s=20

That will get Macron cancelled in this country....

Pulpstar

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1272191356845391875

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1271545567219499009

Trump's going to hold Oklahoma. Core vote stuff. Might watch the rally though, for the lolz.

Foxy

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

At present the case fatality rate in America is over 5%. In the UK the CFR running at well over twice that.

1% may be a bit optimistic.

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1272191356845391875

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1271545567219499009

Trump's going to hold Oklahoma. Core vote stuff. Might watch the rally though, for the lolz.

Be curious the R rate of Oklahoma if this is a traditional style rally - and if they follow their leader's standard of wearing masks.

dixiedean

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Its still the first wave, I think.

West Coast cities locked down early and hard, now opening up and big protests and seeing a spike. I think it is just first wave that has been delayed by the early lockdown.

And of course the big exception to big protests / opening up and no sign of increase, New York. It is like you hit 20-25% of people getting it and it starts to become hard for it to spread.

Or maybe they locked down long enough and hard enough to get it under control? We really don't know.

FrancisUrquhart

Macron and Boris on the same page on statue issue.

FrancisUrquhart

dixiedean said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

But why would Florida be experiencing a 2nd wave, after unlockdowning, when European nations haven't?

What was their R number?

Its still the first wave, I think.

West Coast cities locked down early and hard, now opening up and big protests and seeing a spike. I think it is just first wave that has been delayed by the early lockdown.

And of course the big exception to big protests / opening up and no sign of increase, New York. It is like you hit 20-25% of people getting it and it starts to become hard for it to spread.

Or maybe they locked down long enough and hard enough to get it under control? We really don't know.

I think they probably did, but I don't think having massive protests and riots day in day out for several weeks was part of the loosing the lockdown plan.

rottenborough

Foxy said:

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

At present the case fatality rate in America is over 5%. In the UK the CFR running at well over twice that.

1% may be a bit optimistic.

10% of UK people who have Covid die? Have I missed something?

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

Biden is up by a big 8.4% in the Midwest where most of the swing states are and also up by 5.8% in the South relative to Hillary in 2016.

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

FrancisUrquhart

The Black Lives Matter protester pictured carrying a white man to safety following a clash between groups in London has said he and his friends "stopped somebody from being killed".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53044138

Andy_JS

The Channel 4 video was painful to watch.

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

Biden is up by a big 8.4% in the Midwest where most of the swing states are and also up by 5.8% in the South relative to Hillary in 2016.

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Biden will win Penn, even if he has to spend the whole campaign there shaking hands with every single voter. It his home turf and they are his people.

MrEd

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Like with any modelling, the problem is garbage in, garbage out. We had this back in 2016 with the "pussygate" comments by Trump. His polling slumped, everyone said the race was over and Trump was done. What was found in hindsight is that his support never really changed, it was just that people became more reticent to admit to a pollster that they supported Trump. I really don't think that has changed and not because I want to do a Nelson and turn a blind eye to data that doesn't support my case but because the recent results suggest enthusiasm remains high and If he is selling way past 800K tickets for a rally, that doesn't suggest someone who is seeing flagging enthusiasm, quite the opposite.

Let me put it another way. I know many on here have pointed to the CA-25 win as an aberration but imagine we had a by-election where we had a seemingly unpopular Government take back a seat it had lost at the last election and not only win it but with a handsome majority, If somebody came on here and said that doesn't really much, would we believe it?

MrEd

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

Biden is up by a big 8.4% in the Midwest where most of the swing states are and also up by 5.8% in the South relative to Hillary in 2016.

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Biden will win Penn, even if he has to spend the whole campaign there shaking hands with every single voter. It his home turf and they are his people.

Last poll had Trump up 4.

Pulpstar

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Black Lives Matter protester pictured carrying a white man to safety following a clash between groups in London has said he and his friends "stopped somebody from being killed".

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53044138

Probably right, someone goes down in a big rowdy crowd they can be trampled without any malice present.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1271895628793081856

Pulpstar

The capacity for the OK rally is 19,000. That'll clearly be filled I imagine by some sort of raffle system for ticket holders. There'll be people who buy tickets but don't show up and who won't show up unless they're going to get into the venue.
BUT there will be a significant portion of non inside the venue ticket holders who will show up. There'll be an almighty Trump covidtailgate party in Tulsa.

FrancisUrquhart

williamglenn said:

twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1271895628793081856

Funny lot that run the CHAZ....they are against immigration controls, border walls, and armed police...yet have built a border wall and have armed guards patrolling it and decide who can / can't go in and out.

rottenborough

Pulpstar said:

The capacity for the OK rally is 19,000. That'll clearly be filled I imagine by some sort of raffle system for ticket holders. There'll be people who buy tickets but don't show up and who won't show up unless they're going to get into the venue.
BUT there will be a significant portion of non inside the venue ticket holders who will show up. There'll be an almighty Trump covidtailgate party in Tulsa.

His team don't care. They just want the data and the email addresses so they can pump lies and crap at them until November.

Fishing

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

At present the case fatality rate in America is over 5%. In the UK the CFR running at well over twice that.

1% may be a bit optimistic.

10% of UK people who have Covid die? Have I missed something?

That excludes the mild cases, the ones that aren't reported I assume.

dixiedean

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

At present the case fatality rate in America is over 5%. In the UK the CFR running at well over twice that.

1% may be a bit optimistic.

10% of UK people who have Covid die? Have I missed something?

That excludes the mild cases, the ones that aren't reported I assume.

I bloody hope so!!!

Pulpstar

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

The capacity for the OK rally is 19,000. That'll clearly be filled I imagine by some sort of raffle system for ticket holders. There'll be people who buy tickets but don't show up and who won't show up unless they're going to get into the venue.
BUT there will be a significant portion of non inside the venue ticket holders who will show up. There'll be an almighty Trump covidtailgate party in Tulsa.

His team don't care. They just want the data and the email addresses so they can pump lies and crap at them until November.

If you're signing up to head to a Trump rally it's a fair assumption you're already in the Trump camp though.

rottenborough

dixiedean said:

Fishing said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

eadric said:

LostPassword said:

Beibheirli_C said:

LostPassword said:

The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?

This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.

We can live with the virus. We live with lots of viruses all the time.

At the moment this virus spreads more quickly, and is too fatal, with too few treatment options, for us to live with it as we do other viruses. Too many people will die.

Roughly 1% of those infected, which might be 30-50% of the population. 200,000 dead in the UK? Mostly over 70? Or 80?

How many will die from total economic collapse? How many suicides? How many kids damaged forever?

600,000 die every year

At present the case fatality rate in America is over 5%. In the UK the CFR running at well over twice that.

1% may be a bit optimistic.

10% of UK people who have Covid die? Have I missed something?

That excludes the mild cases, the ones that aren't reported I assume.

I bloody hope so!!!

If the death rate was 10% rather than the 0.1 - 1 % range we currently discuss then no one would leave their houses for a year.

rottenborough

Pulpstar said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

The capacity for the OK rally is 19,000. That'll clearly be filled I imagine by some sort of raffle system for ticket holders. There'll be people who buy tickets but don't show up and who won't show up unless they're going to get into the venue.
BUT there will be a significant portion of non inside the venue ticket holders who will show up. There'll be an almighty Trump covidtailgate party in Tulsa.

His team don't care. They just want the data and the email addresses so they can pump lies and crap at them until November.

If you're signing up to head to a Trump rally it's a fair assumption you're already in the Trump camp though.

True.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1272133760939708416/photo/1

Well, he's certainly made things happen.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/PeteSouza/status/1272176646590812162

Andy_JS

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1271895628793081856

What would the lefty hippies of the 1960s think of all this? They were interested in peace and love, however silly that might sound.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1272202924496769037

rottenborough

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1272202924496769037

On that basis, it is Harris vs Baldwin

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1272234840432263169

HYUFD

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

Biden is up by a big 8.4% in the Midwest where most of the swing states are and also up by 5.8% in the South relative to Hillary in 2016.

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Biden will win Penn, even if he has to spend the whole campaign there shaking hands with every single voter. It his home turf and they are his people.

Last poll had Trump up 4.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1268996532906442754?s=20

dixiedean

HYUFD said:

MrEd said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

If non college whites go Biden in numbers then Trump is done. It is over.

If only I could believe this was true...

Biden is up by a big 8.4% in the Midwest where most of the swing states are and also up by 5.8% in the South relative to Hillary in 2016.

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Biden will win Penn, even if he has to spend the whole campaign there shaking hands with every single voter. It his home turf and they are his people.

Last poll had Trump up 4.

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1268996532906442754?s=20

Do I take it you see Trump, if not toast, then desperately snookered and needing either an excellent shot or a fluke?

Andy_JS

"Language is a telling clue to unacknowledged racial attitudes

Overt racism is declining, but studies show that unconscious bias remains widespread"

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/06/11/language-is-a-telling-clue-to-unacknowledged-racial-attitudes

Rob_downunder

Guessing this is probably an outlier, but if Trump is only up single digits in Arkansas then he's in big trouble...

https://talkbusiness.net/2020/06/poll-independents-dissatisfied-with-trump-cotton-biden-competitive-in-arkansas/

EPG

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Like with any modelling, the problem is garbage in, garbage out. We had this back in 2016 with the "pussygate" comments by Trump. His polling slumped, everyone said the race was over and Trump was done. What was found in hindsight is that his support never really changed, it was just that people became more reticent to admit to a pollster that they supported Trump. I really don't think that has changed and not because I want to do a Nelson and turn a blind eye to data that doesn't support my case but because the recent results suggest enthusiasm remains high and If he is selling way past 800K tickets for a rally, that doesn't suggest someone who is seeing flagging enthusiasm, quite the opposite.

Let me put it another way. I know many on here have pointed to the CA-25 win as an aberration but imagine we had a by-election where we had a seemingly unpopular Government take back a seat it had lost at the last election and not only win it but with a handsome majority, If somebody came on here and said that doesn't really much, would we believe it?

Erm, like Copeland in 2017? Not the best argument...

FrancisUrquhart

Andy_JS said:

"Language is a telling clue to unacknowledged racial attitudes

Overt racism is declining, but studies show that unconscious bias remains widespread"

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/06/11/language-is-a-telling-clue-to-unacknowledged-racial-attitudes

Where has this using "thugs" means your a closet racist come from? Boris used it for both violent incidents and twitter were all over how racist it was.

NPR convinced it what people use instead of the N word, despite Obama using it. It is screams looking for racism where one doesn't exist. I know the origins are from India, but in the UK, I don't think the general public every think that term has been used to describe only those from one particular racial group. Most people will have seen the beer bellied tattoos racists from yesterday and imagine their inner monologue said they look like a bunch of thugs.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

Andrew

HYUFD said:

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

Biden clearly looks great now, but it wouldn't take that much swing back for this to be neck and neck in the electoral college. Assume WI/MI are goners for Trump, then he needs to hold all of FL/NC/PA/OH/AZ, all of which are still well within reach. He can even lose Arizona and win on a tied 269-269, if he can hold onto NE2.

Having said that, if covid sparks up again and then there's a bazillion unemployed, it's a landslide. 400+ territory.

Andy_JS

Those poll numbers are both good and bad for Biden IMO. They're good because he's ahead in all of them, but at the same time for his best result to be ahead by just 4.2% in Michigan is a bit concerning if there's any swingback between now and the election, caused by for instance the debates.

Surrey

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

Which the parents will then quite rightly refuse to pay. What you going to do, throw them all in jail? Any Government forcing parents to send their kids back to school when they are not certain it is safe has already lost the next election whether it is in a week, a year or a decade.

Indeed.

In normal circumstance it is nanny state nonsense fining parents who want to take their children out of school for a holiday, seeing the world will teach children more than a few days missed of school.

Its insanity to fine parents who fear to send their children to school and want to homeschool. That's just madness.

I'd rather see fines abolished permanently than increased. Make sure the schools are open for those who want to go back, that has to be the #1 priority.

A parent has the right to begin home educating whenever they want, and if they write to a headteacher ("proprietor") to tell them that's what they're now doing and to instruct deregistration from the school then deregistration must occur forthwith. That's in Section 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. They don't even have to seek permission let alone risk being fined. In short they can tell a school to butt out and the school must then butt out.

Philip_Thompson

Surrey said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

MaxPB said:

RochdalePioneers said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1272260639495462914?s=19

In Edinburgh primary school pupils will be in 4 days out of 3 weeks. 1,1,2 over the 3 weeks. Whole days. Fridays will be for the teachers to offer increased work from home support.
We'll find out at the end of June our rotas.

I think the same style for secondary pupils as well but it is on a subject by subject basis for what that means for teaching.

That's rubbish. The dereliction of duty to kids by all governments in the UK has been disgraceful. The teachers need to be ordered back to work or face the dole queue.

It's not the teachers doing this you pillock it's the government. You cannot send kids back to school. So says the the government guidelines which are explicit and unambiguous about social distancing

It absolutely is the teachers. They were popping champagne corks at the NUT when the government announced it had capitulated. The social distancing guidelines are also a disaster and you'll find no defense of them from me, primarily it is the teachers and their unions not wanting to go to work.

As I said, they either report for work tomorrow or stick them in the dole queue.

I get the frustration- I've got one going back 2 days a week this week and the other one at home for the foreseeable future. It's not good. And I'm sure that the unions have pushed their luck on this. But consider that a Conservative government with an 80 seat majority and a reputation for ruthlessness has been outwitted by teacher unions. There are a few reasons.

First (and I know I go on about this a lot) the UK government hasn't done well at reducing the amount of virus in society. France is back to business as usual in a week's time, because they've had fewer deaths and infections recently. Our government has been rubbish, and I suspect it's because they are led by populists who won't do anything to upset the public. So our lockdown has always been half-hearted, less effective, so it has to drag on for longer.

Second, by pushing wishful thinking, it's prevented honest discussion of what's actually possible. Back in March, the debate should have been "This could go on for a while. What is going to be possible in the space schools have, what extra space is available, what online and broadcast stuff can fill the gaps?" That didn't really happen, because the powers that be decided that it would all be over by teatime anyway. So teachers and heads have been working themselves into madness trying to get social distancing to work with the rooms and furniture they have.

Finally, there's no point opening schools if parents aren't convinced of safety. The one mine go to was down to about 50 % attendance before closure, and the figures for schools that have reopened aren't great.

On parents, same fucking treatment. Your kids report to school unless you have a person who is shielding living in the same household. Anything else results in punitive fines.

Which the parents will then quite rightly refuse to pay. What you going to do, throw them all in jail? Any Government forcing parents to send their kids back to school when they are not certain it is safe has already lost the next election whether it is in a week, a year or a decade.

Indeed.

In normal circumstance it is nanny state nonsense fining parents who want to take their children out of school for a holiday, seeing the world will teach children more than a few days missed of school.

Its insanity to fine parents who fear to send their children to school and want to homeschool. That's just madness.

I'd rather see fines abolished permanently than increased. Make sure the schools are open for those who want to go back, that has to be the #1 priority.

A parent has the right to begin home educating whenever they want, and if they write to a headteacher ("proprietor") to tell them that's what they're now doing and to instruct deregistration from the school then deregistration must occur forthwith. That's in Section 8(1)(d) of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006. They don't even have to seek permission let alone risk being fined. In short they can tell a school to butt out and the school must then butt out.

Yes but then they lose their child's place at the school for after the virus when things get back to normal so I can imagine that being an issue for some.

Personally I want my kids back at school ASAP. If that means going back before other parents are ready so be it. The priority has to be reopening the schools as quickly as possible for everyone who wants to go back, not getting everyone back.

Surrey

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Like with any modelling, the problem is garbage in, garbage out. We had this back in 2016 with the "pussygate" comments by Trump. His polling slumped, everyone said the race was over and Trump was done. What was found in hindsight is that his support never really changed, it was just that people became more reticent to admit to a pollster that they supported Trump. I really don't think that has changed and not because I want to do a Nelson and turn a blind eye to data that doesn't support my case but because the recent results suggest enthusiasm remains high and If he is selling way past 800K tickets for a rally, that doesn't suggest someone who is seeing flagging enthusiasm, quite the opposite.

Let me put it another way. I know many on here have pointed to the CA-25 win as an aberration but imagine we had a by-election where we had a seemingly unpopular Government take back a seat it had lost at the last election and not only win it but with a handsome majority, If somebody came on here and said that doesn't really much, would we believe it?

The campaign has corrected the figure to 300K, which is for registrations of interest not sales. The Tulsa venue can hold fewer than 20K. Not even the world's largest stadium, in North Korea, can hold 300K.

Philip_Thompson

Surrey said:

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

rcs1000 said:

DeClare said:

Dunno why Kamala Harris is so strongly fancied when her state is a certainty to vote for Biden, or almost anyone who's not Donald Trump.
She launched her own campaign for President and got nowhere, so if I was Biden I'd look for someone, I agree that it will almost certainly be a woman, who can appeal to voters in a swing state, such as Florida for example.

Harris is favourite because Biden is, ultimately, extremely conservative. He won't to rock the boat at all. So he needs someone with experience, someone moderate, someone who doesn't scare a single person into voting against Biden.

Harris fits that bill. She may be boring. But that's the low risk option.

I'm expecting it to be Harris. As you say, she is the low risk option. But the reason I think Biden will pick her is not because he is innately conservative - although he probably is - but because in sporting parlance the election is Biden's to lose and he will know this. All he has to do is not lose it and he wins. If it was looking on more on a knife edge - and definitely if he was in trouble - I think he would be more likely to take a risk with his choice of running mate. I like Harris btw. And I think she will make a good president in 2024 (or earlier).

As you said Harris is favourite because she is seen as the low risk option. But she may not be the low risk option if she angers the BLM like this

https://nypost.com/2020/06/13/joe-biden-considering-ex-cop-as-veep-amid-calls-to-defund-the-police/

The comment here that is interesting from the NY BLM Chairman is that people are already on the fence about Biden. That is why I don't think either Harris or Demings is the safe choice. Both of them will have past history which, in the current environment, risks a large chunk of the activist base opposing Biden.

I argued in my post for Lujan. I can see Rice getting the pick but she may be seen as too intellectual for the current climate. The one I probably dismissed too quickly is Bottoms. She acted quickly in accepting the resignation of the police chief over a shooting and is getting some praise. But I still think it will be Lujan.

Some people may be on the fence with Biden, but others are breaking to him, including non college whites.

https://www.pluralvote.com/article/biden-trump-base.php

Like with any modelling, the problem is garbage in, garbage out. We had this back in 2016 with the "pussygate" comments by Trump. His polling slumped, everyone said the race was over and Trump was done. What was found in hindsight is that his support never really changed, it was just that people became more reticent to admit to a pollster that they supported Trump. I really don't think that has changed and not because I want to do a Nelson and turn a blind eye to data that doesn't support my case but because the recent results suggest enthusiasm remains high and If he is selling way past 800K tickets for a rally, that doesn't suggest someone who is seeing flagging enthusiasm, quite the opposite.

Let me put it another way. I know many on here have pointed to the CA-25 win as an aberration but imagine we had a by-election where we had a seemingly unpopular Government take back a seat it had lost at the last election and not only win it but with a handsome majority, If somebody came on here and said that doesn't really much, would we believe it?

The campaign has corrected the figure to 300K, which is for registrations of interest not sales. The Tulsa venue can hold fewer than 20K. Not even the world's largest stadium, in North Korea, can hold 300K.

Or the campaign is just making numbers up.

Or the campaign is counting page views as expressions of interest.

Either way they're not telling the truth.

rcs1000

I'm not sure I would read too much into CA-25. Firstly, it happened the day after Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti announced lockdown restrictions would continue until the end of September. Secondly, turnout was sub 30%. Simply, it wasn't that the Republicans gained votes, it was that Democratic turnout for a House seat that won't sit for more than about three or four months was down.

edmundintokyo

Andrew said:

HYUFD said:

However he is only up 3.9% in the West and just 2.7% in the Northeast. Given it was California and New York which won Hillary the popular vote but Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which cost her the presidency that suggests Biden is making the improvements he needs to in the states he needs to to have a chance to win the Electoral College and ignoring the popular vote

Biden clearly looks great now, but it wouldn't take that much swing back for this to be neck and neck in the electoral college. Assume WI/MI are goners for Trump, then he needs to hold all of FL/NC/PA/OH/AZ, all of which are still well within reach. He can even lose Arizona and win on a tied 269-269, if he can hold onto NE2.

Having said that, if covid sparks up again and then there's a bazillion unemployed, it's a landslide. 400+ territory.

On the raw numbers this is right, but if you look at the various states a lot of the difference between the national lead and the swing states is coming from one pollster, Change Research for CNBC. For instance, PA has:

CNBC/Change Research (D) 5/29 - 5/31 579 LV -- 46 50 Trump +4
Harper (R) 4/21 - 4/26 644 LV 3.9 49 43 Biden +6
FOX News 4/18 - 4/21 803 RV 3.5 50 42 Biden +8

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_biden-6861.html

I'm sure they're a perfectly OK pollster and you shouldn't just ignore their data, but if I had to guess whether Biden is massively underperforming in PA and environs or whether that particular set of Change Research polls is wonky, I'd go with wonky polls.

If I'm right, we'll see the gap shrink as more pollsters do state polls.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1272346254069161988

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1272283148701896704

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1272239081444040705