ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.
Several million someones, all strangely similar....
Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
I don't think so. Before JFK many Catholics felt that the Presidency was closed to them. They'd've supported JFK as a viable Catholic candidate, even if they didn't agree with many of his political positions. Today Biden, or any other Catholic candidate's, religion is wholly unremarkable, so any Catholic who feels that their religion is an important part of their political beliefs is less likely to vote for Biden as he is relatively socially liberal.
Yet nonetheless there has been an above average swing from Trump to Biden amongst Catholics, Hillary was Methodist, Trump is Presbyterian
Can't see his antics going down well with the Hebridean Presbyterians from whom he is descended on his mother's side.
Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
I don't think so. Before JFK many Catholics felt that the Presidency was closed to them. They'd've supported JFK as a viable Catholic candidate, even if they didn't agree with many of his political positions. Today Biden, or any other Catholic candidate's, religion is wholly unremarkable, so any Catholic who feels that their religion is an important part of their political beliefs is less likely to vote for Biden as he is relatively socially liberal.
Yet nonetheless there has been an above average swing from Trump to Biden amongst Catholics, Hillary was Methodist, Trump is Presbyterian
I think it's more conservative Catholics realizing that Trump is the antithesis of Christian virtue, rather than Biden being one of them.
Biden is actually the most pro life Democratic candidate since Carter, he backed the Hyde amendment which restricted federal funds for abortion for example, though he now says he is pro choice to win the Democratic nomination conservative Catholics will have noticed that
"Its gone viral. Thats all they care about." is the top rated comment and I think that's probably fair. A whole load of publications are in big trouble.
The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.
Indeed, if Trump loses an establishment Republican will likely be the candidate in 2024 eg Romney or George P Bush or Nikki Haley.
Pence needs Trump to be re elected to maximise his chances of being nominee and elected in 2024
The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....
The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.
Haley is the GOP candidate for 2024 imho.*
Assuming the jackass loses in November.
She certainly has a chance, Romney would also fancy his chances, both need Trump to lose.
Though even if Trump loses Pence might take comfort from the fact Mondale was Democratic candidate in 1984 after having been Carter's VP for a term, despite Carter's defeat in 1980, though Reagan beat him easily
Are these 'gloomy' epidemiologists the same ones who allegedly underestimated the severity of COVID-19 (i.e. were overly optimistic) and therefore locked down too late?
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
It’s a good article, with perhaps the weakness that most of us want to believe it - there is nothing so convincing as apparently objective analysis that leads to an already preferred conclusion.
The counter argument that worries me is that Biden’s election lacks a real story. Americans love a story, and to watch a story unfold, and most of their successful pitches for the presidency have been based around a strong personal narrative. The maverick outsider TV personality who becomes president was a more compelling tale than of the lifetime Washington insider working her way up toward the top job, and that is disregarding the draw of the being the first female.
Of course, the story of Trump’s re-election isn’t as compelling as the first time around, but then he now has incumbency and precedent on his side.
How are they going to package and sell Biden’s pitch for the White House?
The abject humiliation of Donald Trump and all those who enabled him.
That's a big big story and imo it's strong enough to carry this movie.
The pitch is the restoration of sensible - Biden, the steady hand at the tiller.
Yes, that's the official strapline. But mine fits nicely with it. The big defeat - the humiliation - is needed to both remove the offending item and remove the stench. If it's close that will be a slightly unsatisfactory ending. We want something like the exit of Mike Baldwin from Coronation St when he died in the arms of Ken Barlow.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.
Haley is the GOP candidate for 2024 imho.*
Assuming the jackass loses in November.
She certainly has a chance, Romney would also fancy his chances, both need Trump to lose.
Though even if Trump loses Pence might take comfort from the fact Mondale was Democratic candidate in 1984 after having been Carter's VP for a term, despite Carter's defeat in 1980, though Reagan beat him easily
Romney has an excellent chance to be the take the Republican Party back from the Trumpists candidate, but only if the GOP gets eviscerated this November. He needs Trumpism to be completely discredited and ripped out root and branch from the Party.
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
The paint doesn't effect RCS noticeably on a conventionally shaped aircraft.
ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%. In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
Things can clearly change between now and November but the only thing that would save Trump right now would be industrial-scale voter suppression by the GOP and I certainly wouldn't rule that out given what we have seen in the past.
How the GOP get away with it is beyond belief to most European observers who are used to the electoral mechanics being basically fair.
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Less than a million quid? Talk about a rounding error.
Whatever happened to measuring government expenditures in hip operations? Did that go out of fashion with the GFC? Maybe we should express everything in summers of free school meals (SOFSM) from now on? So the repaint is ~0.0075 SOFSM.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%. In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
This is an important warning.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Not really.
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...
Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
I'm starting to see more and more FL polling that has Biden in the lead. I won't speculate on the religious aspect, but if that sticks Trump is in serious trouble. I'm not sure he even has a viable route if Biden takes Florida.
It’s a good article, with perhaps the weakness that most of us want to believe it - there is nothing so convincing as apparently objective analysis that leads to an already preferred conclusion.
The counter argument that worries me is that Biden’s election lacks a real story. Americans love a story, and to watch a story unfold, and most of their successful pitches for the presidency have been based around a strong personal narrative. The maverick outsider TV personality who becomes president was a more compelling tale than of the lifetime Washington insider working her way up toward the top job, and that is disregarding the draw of the being the first female.
Of course, the story of Trump’s re-election isn’t as compelling as the first time around, but then he now has incumbency and precedent on his side.
How are they going to package and sell Biden’s pitch for the White House?
The abject humiliation of Donald Trump and all those who enabled him.
That's a big big story and imo it's strong enough to carry this movie.
The pitch is the restoration of sensible - Biden, the steady hand at the tiller.
That man is still being paid to Bray his nonsense outside Parliament? And you're still retweeting him? Never change!
lol. Is that the Remoaner idiot who used to shout through his megaphone over every interview?
A quintessentially tragic figure. I read that he lost his job and house because of all this. Completely mad, and sad.
It’s quite funny how ScottP keeps posting tweets from ultra-Remainers on here (like the editor of the New European, or Steve Bray) like it somehow adds something to the discussion.
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
You're making the mistake of looking at national vote figures when then thing that matters is state by state.
In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvannia Dem absolute vote was down. She lost the Dems votes where it mattered. And in all those states Trump put on a tiny number of additional votes over Romney (or in the case of Wisconsin actually got less votes) so it was not a case of Dem to GOP switching.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Yet we're not spiking in NYS.
NYC is very much out on a limb here and the suggestions have been because it was the worst hit and so is a level of immunity built in already. That wouldn't be the case elsewhere where there have been demonstrations.
You would also expect thousands of people gathered closely together, shouting, screaming etc to be a far more effective transmitter of the virus than shops being opened and people walking in one at a time.
If the demonstrations haven't caused these spikes, it is a mighty fine coincidence these spikes are happening now given the timing of the demonstrations...
ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.
I live to serve. I will be there
Mmm. Great.
I agree with your 5% chance of off-the-scale societal unrest in America before the election. But in amongst his countless flaws - easier to try and come up with one he doesn't have rather than list them - is ineptitude. Donald Trump is stupendously inept as a politician in office. He really is a toddler in the deep end. So even if half of the country is ablaze and the superwoke liberal mafia are conspiring with #metoo harridans and frightening looking black men to feed the flames it will not (imo) do him much good at the polls.
I'm not betting on this, I despise Trump too much to bet rationally on it and don't have faith in Americans not to re-elect him.
My big concern is GOP voter suppression. They will do it on a massive scale and very brazenly - and they control the courts where it matters.
That's true, but it won't all be one way traffic. Facebook are greatly gearing up their voter registration activities compared to 2016. Remember too that in Florida around 1 million people with spent convictions have now won the right to vote, despite the best efforts of the GOP to stop them.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
I'm not betting on this, I despise Trump too much to bet rationally on it and don't have faith in Americans not to re-elect him.
My big concern is GOP voter suppression. They will do it on a massive scale and very brazenly - and they control the courts where it matters.
And a fair proportion of the governors' mansions. I agree; this has the potential to be the most corrupt election since LBJ was around...
Yes - I'm only relaxed (relatively) because I do not think it will be close.
Yes - even LBJ had to outperform all expectations in the fair parts of the contest to enable his stuffing of the ballot to carry him to victory in Texas first time around.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....
I wonder if that's due to the distribution of people in that state? There are only two big cities.
Phoenix doesn't exactly pack people in, but it does have a lot of air conditioning...
Yeah, but you still have the same density in bars, restaurants, and their huge malls. And you are right, A/C will be running all the time this time of year.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Not really.
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...
Because the status that are showing the biggest increases don't correlate with the largest/longest protests but do correlate worth who started opening up first (which is nothing to do with GOP or Dem governors)
On topic, one effect of the coronavirus will be to turboboost inequality.
Those at the bottom have been exposed to the biggest risks, largest increases in workloads and borne the greatest job insecurity. Their kids are also likely to suffer the worst from closed education, and it could take years to make that gap up again. If not longer.
The professional middle classes, by contrast, have been able to work from home, save money and continue to get decent schooling privately or by tuition. Plus greater exercise and mental health.
If you think the long term political effects of this are obvious - yet alone the social ones - think again.
Not seen the video of the US rozzer, but weren't a couple of US police harmed (only saw the headline, unsure if it was an attack or poison) when they ordered fast food?
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
You're making the mistake of looking at national vote figures when then thing that matters is state by state.
In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvannia Dem absolute vote was down. She lost the Dems votes where it mattered. And in all those states Trump put on a tiny number of additional votes over Romney (or in the case of Wisconsin actually got less votes) so it was not a case of Dem to GOP switching.
That is true on headline numbers but your argument misses an important point. In all those 3 states, the number of 3rd party votes shot up - up 180K in PA, up 200K in MI and up 150K in WI. It is likely that the majority of those (given the nature of the parties) were Republicans who wouldn't want Trump. So what is more likely to have happened is a case of Democrat voters replacing Republican voters who went for 3rd party candidates with the net balance for the Republicans being zero. The actual results would fit that hypothesis.
Not seen the video of the US rozzer, but weren't a couple of US police harmed (only saw the headline, unsure if it was an attack or poison) when they ordered fast food?
The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
His betting judgement on Rubio was appalling but...
Cromwell said:
Any one who bets on Trump winning the nomination has a crude and simplistic grasp of American politics ; furthermore , they deserve to lose their money
Trump is a ''reality TV star '' who has descended into malignant narcissism and megalomania ..he's Dr Strangelove or a cartoonish James bond villain ; he's not a demagogue , but a comedic parody of a demagogue ...TRUMPOLINI I presume ?
There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP ; Trump is polling lower than Bernie Sanders but only looks like a winner because the opposition have not unified ...he probably will win New Hampshire but his victories can only last until the establishment unifies
Trump is a venal opportunist who loves running for president but would be horrified if the presidency were actually forced upon him
Trump's supporters are gormless beyond belief ; if he chewed the head off a puppy on live TV they would applaud him for making the world more safer for cats !
Weirdly predicted Biden's sweep to victory in the Dem race of 2020. Just 4 years too early with his logic.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Yet we're not spiking in NYS.
NYC is very much out on a limb here and the suggestions have been because it was the worst hit and so is a level of immunity built in already. That wouldn't be the case elsewhere where there have been demonstrations.
You would also expect thousands of people gathered closely together, shouting, screaming etc to be a far more effective transmitter of the virus than shops being opened and people walking in one at a time.
If the demonstrations haven't caused these spikes, it is a mighty fine coincidence these spikes are happening now given the timing of the demonstrations...
But the geographical distribution of those spikes doesn't really correlate with the locations of the protests, does it?
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
Mr. xP, ah, I hadn't heard that. On the other hand, if someone hears and believes fake news it can still influence their perspective so it could still be related to the video of the lady police officer.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Not really. If there's any spike from the demonstrations (quite possible), I'd expect it to show up in the figures in a week or so. This is about the earlier reopening (as some of the recent case histories from contact tracing demonstrate).
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.
When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......
Not really.
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...
Because the status that are showing the biggest increases don't correlate with the largest/longest protests but do correlate worth who started opening up first (which is nothing to do with GOP or Dem governors)
To a degree, Georgia is around the same, Oregon is rising sharply.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.
Biden does seem to have woken up. Maybe he is just poor at generalised political blather - issue are his thing?
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%. In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
This is an important warning.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.
You can never write off a runner in a 2 horse race for the simple reason that the other one might fall.
But 2.44 to lay (Trump) is a price I would put no-one off. It looks skinny in the extreme based on the weight of the evidence in the public domain.
There could be - in fact I strongly sense there is - a touch of the same thing going on here that distorted many people's assessment of our Dec 12th. The memory of a shock last time causing a serious overstatement of the chances of a shock in the same direction happening again.
Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%. In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
This is an important warning.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.
How many debates do you think there will be. I'm going to go with 1.
The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
His betting judgement on Rubio was appalling but...
Cromwell said:
Any one who bets on Trump winning the nomination has a crude and simplistic grasp of American politics ; furthermore , they deserve to lose their money
Trump is a ''reality TV star '' who has descended into malignant narcissism and megalomania ..he's Dr Strangelove or a cartoonish James bond villain ; he's not a demagogue , but a comedic parody of a demagogue ...TRUMPOLINI I presume ?
There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP ; Trump is polling lower than Bernie Sanders but only looks like a winner because the opposition have not unified ...he probably will win New Hampshire but his victories can only last until the establishment unifies
Trump is a venal opportunist who loves running for president but would be horrified if the presidency were actually forced upon him
Trump's supporters are gormless beyond belief ; if he chewed the head off a puppy on live TV they would applaud him for making the world more safer for cats !
Weirdly predicted Biden's sweep to victory in the Dem race of 2020. Just 4 years too early with his logic.
Absolutely spot on, with the exception of There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP.
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.
It was shot of the PM's car crashing
Dismissing it due to your perception of the source seems counter intuitive on a betting site, but maybe that's just me
You posted “somebody’s left leg” with only two hundred followers retweeted by a Brexit ‘resister’ fanatic this morning, on the basis the former was some sort of Aussie journalist.
CR on the last thread I made suggestion if you are lucky enough for your salary to top the £100K re the 60% effective tax. Don't know whether you saw it or not. Hope it helps. It is an easy solution to a nice problem.
Comments
https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1273075677454098436?s=20
China lied, and Trump err... believed them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmieUrXwKCc
Pence needs Trump to be re elected to maximise his chances of being nominee and elected in 2024
Assuming the jackass loses in November.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1273047315121606661
Though even if Trump loses Pence might take comfort from the fact Mondale was Democratic candidate in 1984 after having been Carter's VP for a term, despite Carter's defeat in 1980, though Reagan beat him easily
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Anyway here's "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman. Ah, my youth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZoJ01FpD8
Even if you painted it in iron ball paint, you wouldn't gain much - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_RAINBOW
This is why I sold Trump at under 200 ECVs at average odds of 8/3 the day before yesterday on PaddyPower.
How the GOP get away with it is beyond belief to most European observers who are used to the electoral mechanics being basically fair.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.
I hate to add to her anxiety but she should probably think about what 'extras' went into her on-time McDs food for the last 15 years.
Biden 2020
and the more Scott tweets the more he winds up you and Brom and the other couple of Johnson shills..
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.
In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvannia Dem absolute vote was down. She lost the Dems votes where it mattered. And in all those states Trump put on a tiny number of additional votes over Romney (or in the case of Wisconsin actually got less votes) so it was not a case of Dem to GOP switching.
You would also expect thousands of people gathered closely together, shouting, screaming etc to be a far more effective transmitter of the virus than shops being opened and people walking in one at a time.
If the demonstrations haven't caused these spikes, it is a mighty fine coincidence these spikes are happening now given the timing of the demonstrations...
I agree with your 5% chance of off-the-scale societal unrest in America before the election. But in amongst his countless flaws - easier to try and come up with one he doesn't have rather than list them - is ineptitude. Donald Trump is stupendously inept as a politician in office. He really is a toddler in the deep end. So even if half of the country is ablaze and the superwoke liberal mafia are conspiring with #metoo harridans and frightening looking black men to feed the flames it will not (imo) do him much good at the polls.
Dismissing it due to your perception of the source seems counter intuitive on a betting site, but maybe that's just me
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile) etc - ranges of over 100nm are claimed.
The UK response to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) can engage at extremely long range
Those at the bottom have been exposed to the biggest risks, largest increases in workloads and borne the greatest job insecurity. Their kids are also likely to suffer the worst from closed education, and it could take years to make that gap up again. If not longer.
The professional middle classes, by contrast, have been able to work from home, save money and continue to get decent schooling privately or by tuition. Plus greater exercise and mental health.
If you think the long term political effects of this are obvious - yet alone the social ones - think again.
It could play out in all sorts of ways.
https://twitter.com/juliareinstein/status/1272940939087134720
Cromwell said:
Any one who bets on Trump winning the nomination has a crude and simplistic grasp of American politics ; furthermore , they deserve to lose their money
Trump is a ''reality TV star '' who has descended into malignant narcissism and megalomania ..he's Dr Strangelove or a cartoonish James bond villain ; he's not a demagogue , but a comedic parody of a demagogue ...TRUMPOLINI I presume ?
There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP ; Trump is polling lower than Bernie Sanders but only looks like a winner because the opposition have not unified ...he probably will win New Hampshire but his victories can only last until the establishment unifies
Trump is a venal opportunist who loves running for president but would be horrified if the presidency were actually forced upon him
Trump's supporters are gormless beyond belief ; if he chewed the head off a puppy on live TV they would applaud him for making the world more safer for cats !
Weirdly predicted Biden's sweep to victory in the Dem race of 2020. Just 4 years too early with his logic.
If there's any spike from the demonstrations (quite possible), I'd expect it to show up in the figures in a week or so. This is about the earlier reopening (as some of the recent case histories from contact tracing demonstrate).
They will be shooting at blips on the screen, Visual recognition is pretty much irrelevant.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.
https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/1273063977648623617
Suggest they never really had it under control
Doing it for love...
But 2.44 to lay (Trump) is a price I would put no-one off. It looks skinny in the extreme based on the weight of the evidence in the public domain.
There could be - in fact I strongly sense there is - a touch of the same thing going on here that distorted many people's assessment of our Dec 12th. The memory of a shock last time causing a serious overstatement of the chances of a shock in the same direction happening again.
That's a decent return for 2 months.
Oh well, at least football is back to distract (some of) us.
You’re really scraping the barrel.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1273216421259022337?s=09
CR on the last thread I made suggestion if you are lucky enough for your salary to top the £100K re the 60% effective tax. Don't know whether you saw it or not. Hope it helps. It is an easy solution to a nice problem.
But by Robert's conclusion.
He is on record on here saying that the riots pretty much guarantee Trump's reelection.
@rcs1000 what has caused you to abandon that view?