I don't agree. Anderlecht were a decent team, so didn't need much help from the ref. Weeds would have won their game by four clear goals with a straight ref.
It hasn't been hijacked, their agenda was clear from the start.
It was a good slogan for an extreme left organisation.
Most people who vote Green in the UK think they're responsible environment lovers, rather than progress hating fanatics. Most people who voted Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s did so because they really wanted a United Ireland, not because they wanted to live in a Marxist state.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!
Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.
That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.
It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.
It hasn't been hijacked, their agenda was clear from the start.
It was a good slogan for an extreme left organisation.
Most people who vote Green in the UK think they're responsible environment lovers, rather than progress hating fanatics. Most people who voted Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s did so because they really wanted a United Ireland, not because they wanted to live in a Marxist state.
Yes but the Green Party and Sinn Fein haven't managed to dupe the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier League, Sky, the BBC etc into posing for photographs promoting them, or plastering their slogans all over everything with any dissenter fearing for their reputation and job!
US corona figures are awful, and in turn, global recovery prospects.
What an awful year 2020 is.
Perhaps though, Trump’s defeat is the cathartic moment we all need.
It's a once in roughly every 50 years occurrence. The last one was the 1968/69 flu epidemic which was every bit as bad as Covid-19, if not more so.
Disagree. 68/69 flu season had a lower death rate (nowhere near the 3% or so seen in Western Europe), and lots of people had existing immunity from other influenza infections so a lower number of people needed to catch it for herd immunity.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
@isam - I can feel my blood pressure rising watching that video! Those chants towards Wenger should have been punished severely by the FA. Not sure if you saw it, but Neville and Carragher did a day with the refs a few years ago:
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Re: the PDX Elk Statute BS, how many PBers think there just might be a few Putinist agents provocateur out there? Same thing with CHOP - should be required to file their in-kind contributions to Trumpsky wth FEC.
Biden should be 1/3 to win, I'm just gonna say it. Trump's deficit is huge, views are entrenched, Biden is widely seen as moderate/safe and that will be hard to budge, the pandemic makes it hard for the election to be about the economy as much as Trump wants, and so on.
The big issue for the US is that while Asia, Australasia and Europe are now managing the virus and re-opening, the US is facing a de facto (rather than de jure) second lockdown.
People won't go out if they don't feel safe. And if they don't go out, then you get all the economic consequences of a lockdown without any of the actual benefits of wiping out the virus. (Which is why Sweden has performed less well economically than neighbours Denmark and Germany, and even - astonishingly - France.)
This is what the US faces. People won't go out because they're scared. They will sit at home and not spend their money and not send their kids to school. And the level of infections will remain stubbornly high.
Is there any sort of consensus in the US as to why the death rate seems so much lower than other countries?
Death rates are low when health systems are not overloaded.
Health systems in the US have not yet, with the exception of NYC two months ago, been overloaded.
If the virus can be contained so it stays within the capacity of health systems, it will probably be largely OK.
If it cannot, and the diminishing number of available IC beds in Houston and Phoenix suggest this is happening now, then you will see the death rate spike again.
Thank you. Sounds perfectly plausible. If they don't get a grip on the infection spread they will be in trouble.
Now that the virus has pretty much spread across the country we might begin to see the national infection rate decline as it has elsewhere.
In comparing the European experience it seems wiser to think of Texas and New York as different countries. Makes me wonder how the infection graph for Europe as a whole would look in comparison to the US.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
I would have thought that it Just serves as a reminder that US and Russia (USSR) have been bitter enemies for the last 70 years.
That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!
Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.
That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.
It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.
Not seen that before but it looks pretty terrible.
Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.
Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.
That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!
US corona figures are awful, and in turn, global recovery prospects.
What an awful year 2020 is.
Perhaps though, Trump’s defeat is the cathartic moment we all need.
It's a once in roughly every 50 years occurrence. The last one was the 1968/69 flu epidemic which was every bit as bad as Covid-19, if not more so.
Disagree. 68/69 flu season had a lower death rate (nowhere near the 3% or so seen in Western Europe), and lots of people had existing immunity from other influenza infections so a lower number of people needed to catch it for herd immunity.
As far as I recall it didn't wreak a fraction of the economic devastation that Covid-19 is going to. I was a 18 at the time and can't actually remember anything about it.
Gregor Smith, Scotland's interim chief medical officer, said that he and counterparts from England, Wales and Northern Ireland had on Thursday “collectively agreed that further work was still necessary” to assess the risk presented by people travelling from other countries to the UK.
Gregor Smith, Scotland's interim chief medical officer, said that he and counterparts from England, Wales and Northern Ireland had on Thursday “collectively agreed that further work was still necessary” to assess the risk presented by people travelling from other countries to the UK.
That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!
Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.
That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.
It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.
Not seen that before but it looks pretty terrible.
Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.
Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.
That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!
Fergie used to have refs he didn't like banned from doing Man Utd games. See the treatment of Martin Atkinson after his, admittedly poor, performance at Stamford Bridge in March 2011:
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
Almost every time since he became president voters, particularly suburban women, have been given a chance to vote against Trump they have taken it. This was shown in a number of Special Elections and the Midterms. Of course they will repeat that when it comes to the man himself.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Unlike OGH and some other posters, I don't rate this particular Lincoln Project ad highly - it is too much the Manchurian candidate to be truly powerful.
What is effective are their ads showing traditional Republican voters not just disgusted with Trump's morality and personality, but with how those directly and adversely impact on US interests and policies in ways that tangibly impact those traditional GOP voters - how Trump's character is leading to more COVID deaths, more and longer job losses, worse markets for farmers, and more US troop deaths overseas.
Just attacking Trump's benefiting from Russian dirty tricks and saying he's in Putin's pocket is far less effective, IMO.
Yes, I'm not sure I can think myself into a wavering Trump voter's shoes, but on the whole, I think I'd file this as "ridiculous conspiracy theory". What would be making me waver would be doubts over the virus strategy and generally feeling that Trump was too self-indulgent to look after ordinary guy me. In order to like the ad you have to accept that Russia manipulated the election, accept that Putin is a Communist and accept that Hillary Clinton stood for truth. Those are big leaps of faith that don't relate to why many voters really doubt Trump.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
In his autobiography, Cameron described him as 'an old-fashioned nationalist'.
Looking at the Monmouth poll cross tabs (53-41 for Biden as headline), there's no regional split but a county split of some interest.
In the counties which Clinton won by more than 10 points, Biden is 30 points ahead. In the counties which Trump won by more than 10 points, he is nine points ahead. In the counties between (< 10 for either Trump or Clinton), Biden is up by 14 points.
That suggests Trump is being driven back into his strongholds and while that will win him enough states and EC votes to prevent a landslide, it won't save him from defeat currently.
The Arizona and Texas state polls are much better for Trump but even the 2% swing shown in Texas will cost Trump 75 EC votes which will be more than enough for Biden - I make it 308-230 to Biden on those numbers.
Unlike OGH and some other posters, I don't rate this particular Lincoln Project ad highly - it is too much the Manchurian candidate to be truly powerful.
What is effective are their ads showing traditional Republican voters not just disgusted with Trump's morality and personality, but with how those directly and adversely impact on US interests and policies in ways that tangibly impact those traditional GOP voters - how Trump's character is leading to more COVID deaths, more and longer job losses, worse markets for farmers, and more US troop deaths overseas.
Just attacking Trump's benefiting from Russian dirty tricks and saying he's in Putin's pocket is far less effective, IMO.
Yes, I'm not sure I can think myself into a wavering Trump voter's shoes, but on the whole, I think I'd file this as "ridiculous conspiracy theory". What would be making me waver would be doubts over the virus strategy and generally feeling that Trump was too self-indulgent to look after ordinary guy me. In order to like the ad you have to accept that Russia manipulated the election, accept that Putin is a Communist and accept that Hillary Clinton stood for truth. Those are big leaps of faith that don't relate to why many voters really doubt Trump.
I think the Lincoln project runs the risk of just being seen as perpetual moaners. After a while, people just tune out.
That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!
Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.
That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.
It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.
Not seen that before but it looks pretty terrible.
Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.
Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.
That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!
Fergie used to have refs he didn't like banned from doing Man Utd games. See the treatment of Martin Atkinson after his, admittedly poor, performance at Stamford Bridge in March 2011:
Gregor Smith, Scotland's interim chief medical officer, said that he and counterparts from England, Wales and Northern Ireland had on Thursday “collectively agreed that further work was still necessary” to assess the risk presented by people travelling from other countries to the UK.
I was looking into my Aunt and Uncle's Marriage in the 1950s. Talking to the local historian in the parish where he was Curate, the comment came back ... "he was one of the first Curates I knew when I joined the church choir in 1949".
That would make the chap about 80 now and his memories of when he was about 8.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
You make my point. No serious political analyst would position either the Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia on the left.
When we are dealing with the extremes, it is difficult because the similarities are greater than the differences. Nevertheless those differences that there are would put Putin on the right, not the left.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
You make my point. No serious political analyst would position either the Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia on the left.
When we are dealing with the extremes, it is difficult because the similarities are greater than the differences. Nevertheless those differences that there are would put Putin on the right, not the left.
The terms "left" and "right" are becoming entirely redundant
About time, given that they are based on the physical configuration of the French Assembly during the Revolution
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
Re: the PDX Elk Statute BS, how many PBers think there just might be a few Putinist agents provocateur out there? Same thing with CHOP - should be required to file their in-kind contributions to Trumpsky wth FEC.
On topic, why hasn't the UK report on Russia been published yet? There are real questions to be asked. The Tories get huge amounts of money from wealthy Russian donors. If there's nothing to hide why won't they let us see the evidence? It's really disgraceful.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
You make my point. No serious political analyst would position either the Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia on the left.
When we are dealing with the extremes, it is difficult because the similarities are greater than the differences. Nevertheless those differences that there are would put Putin on the right, not the left.
The terms "left" and "right" are becoming entirely redundant
About time, given that they are based on the physical configuration of the French Assembly during the Revolution
Liberals have sympathy with the point, since being positioned in the centre understates the challenge that true liberalism presents to the status quo.
Yet before you reach the extremes the distinction clearly has value - I cannot imagine that any PB reader would ever put your stream of posts on the left, as a good example.
Re: the PDX Elk Statute BS, how many PBers think there just might be a few Putinist agents provocateur out there? Same thing with CHOP - should be required to file their in-kind contributions to Trumpsky wth FEC.
In English please?
Are you unable to Google?
PDX = Portland; BS = bullshit; PBers = residents of this parish; CHOP = Capitol Hill Organized Protest; FEC = Federal Election Commission
CNN: FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in New Hampshire.
"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident,” he said.
Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
You make my point. No serious political analyst would position either the Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia on the left.
When we are dealing with the extremes, it is difficult because the similarities are greater than the differences. Nevertheless those differences that there are would put Putin on the right, not the left.
The terms "left" and "right" are becoming entirely redundant
About time, given that they are based on the physical configuration of the French Assembly during the Revolution
Liberals have sympathy with the point, since being positioned in the centre understates the challenge that true liberalism presents to the status quo.
Yet before you reach the extremes the distinction clearly has value - I cannot imagine that any PB reader would ever put your stream of posts on the left, as a good example.
Where is Antifa/Official BLM?
They want to abolish police, deconstruct the nuclear family, they are obsessed with race, they think a certain race ("whites") are racist and evil just because, they want to destroy the judicial/prison system, they want to dismantle capitalism, they are anti-Israel verging on anti-Semitic
Some of these positions are classically hard left, some are classically hard right.
As i say, the terms are becoming redundant. But I agree they will persist for quite a while, because we are so used to them
US corona figures are awful, and in turn, global recovery prospects.
What an awful year 2020 is.
Perhaps though, Trump’s defeat is the cathartic moment we all need.
It's a once in roughly every 50 years occurrence. The last one was the 1968/69 flu epidemic which was every bit as bad as Covid-19, if not more so.
Disagree. 68/69 flu season had a lower death rate (nowhere near the 3% or so seen in Western Europe), and lots of people had existing immunity from other influenza infections so a lower number of people needed to catch it for herd immunity.
As far as I recall it didn't wreak a fraction of the economic devastation that Covid-19 is going to. I was a 18 at the time and can't actually remember anything about it.
It was at its worst in SEAsia, and America (probably via US Military). In most of the world it was a smouldering epidemic. This was the British picture:
HK flu appeared in the summer of 68 in HK, but the main peak here was winter 69, at its peak 2-3 times "seasonal flu". Vaccine was on the market after 4 months. A lot of people had partial immunity because of exposure to the 57-58 flu.
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
There have been in all fairness one or two less poor polls for Trump such as Arizona (Gavis) and the Texas poll could have been worse.
I think the national polls need caution - I look at the geographical crosstabs when they are published and it's the Midwest where there seems to be most variation. I've seen one which showed Biden 30 points up in that region but the concensus is it's very close.
Biden doesn't need much swing to turn Clinton's EC deficit into a surplus - a 2% swing wins 75 EC votes for Biden which would be more than enough.
The Monmouth numbers confirm what I've been suspecting - both Trump and Biden are piling up votes where they don't need them but the crucial marginal counties are showing Biden 14 points up.
Yes, there could be "shy" Trump supporters in abundance and this has been peddled ever since the 1992 UK GE when Major's win was put down to "shy Tories" but polling is more sophisticated and while Trump fans point to NY-27 and a few other results they are more like Labour holds East Ham.
The Democrats took a solid GOP district in the Kentucky State Senate having won the gubernatorial election last December when all the polls were showing the incumbent GOP candidate would win by 2-5 points.
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
Unlike OGH and some other posters, I don't rate this particular Lincoln Project ad highly - it is too much the Manchurian candidate to be truly powerful.
What is effective are their ads showing traditional Republican voters not just disgusted with Trump's morality and personality, but with how those directly and adversely impact on US interests and policies in ways that tangibly impact those traditional GOP voters - how Trump's character is leading to more COVID deaths, more and longer job losses, worse markets for farmers, and more US troop deaths overseas.
Just attacking Trump's benefiting from Russian dirty tricks and saying he's in Putin's pocket is far less effective, IMO.
You make some good points. BUT don't you think that Putin paying bounties for killing American soldiers, has a wee bit more impact than Putin computer hacking?
And do NOT worry, the girls & boys at Lincoln Project are NOT going to stop bringing up the Creeping Crud, looming recession, etc., etc.
CNN: FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in New Hampshire.
"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident,” he said.
Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.
Very surprised she was still in the US.
Yes. Quite,
Does anyone sane believe this story?
Ghislaine Maxwell, THE Most Wanted Person in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, was just living quietly in AN ENORMOUS MANSION in suburban New Hampshire, and no one noticed until now?
Or, even more ludicrously, the FBI was waiting for "just the right time" to arrest her, while giving her, cough cough, a good few months to fuck the fuck off, and stop embarrassing very important people.
It's bonkers. They knew she was there. They hesitated. Because powerful forces no not want her to go trial.
The same people that did not want Epstein to go to trial. So he didn't.
The only reason this isn't a bigger scandal is because Epstein (and his managers?) were clever enough to involve/implicate ALL sides of the the political debate. Clinton as well as Trump,
Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.
What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.
This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.
Nice to have good news.
Indeed. I remember seeing the mounted one in Salisbury Museum many years ago, a Wiltshire original IIRC.
I drove down the M4 the other day. There are now Red Kites virtually all the way, from Reading to Bristol. Glorious soaring raptors.
They are huge and they are noisy. I love them.
They also went extinct in the UK, England and Scotland, in 1880.
Boy are they BACK
Yes they are, I live in North Hampshire and they are commonplace, although apparently they are lone juveniles rather than breeding pairs. I have even seen them in Aldershot. How long before they are urban vermin again, as in Shakespeare's London?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
His brother from another mother was a non German German nationalist...
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
It's a lagging indicator and, also, at the moment Civd-19 is spreading amongst young American people going to bars.
In addition, treatments are vastly improved, so fewer people in hospital will die
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
You might be right.
But here's the thing: the BLM protests actually affect very few people. I haven't seen a single thing in Los Angeles. There don't seem to be any more riots. In Seattle the commune has already been disbanded.
But let's assume that they flare up again. Even in those circumstances, how many people will actually see a real live BLM protestor? And by contrast, how many people will know someone who has been severely debilitated by CV-19?
The divergence between case rates and death rates between the US and UK is remarkable. Yesterday the US case rate again rose dramatically faster than that in the UK, which is slowly dwindling down. Yet the percentage increase in reported COVID deaths in the UK and US was almost the same.
Will there be excessive deaths figures published for US?
Just discovered that SeanT's grandfather knew LLoyd George. He stood as a Liberal candidate in 1918 and used to travel into London with LG. Lloyd George also signed a letter to The Times asking for a memorial to his son Edward Thomas for his services to poetry.
Just a second. Just read this on the previous thread. Is this for real? Is SeanT genuinely the grandson of Edward Thomas. Along with John Clare, Thomas is one of my great poetic heroes.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Just discovered that SeanT's grandfather knew LLoyd George. He stood as a Liberal candidate in 1918 and used to travel into London with LG. Lloyd George also signed a letter to The Times asking for a memorial to his son Edward Thomas for his services to poetry.
Just a second. Just read this on the previous thread. Is this for real? Is SeanT genuinely the grandson of Edward Thomas. Along with John Clare, Thomas is one of my great poetic heroes.
Is this real or someone messing about?
"Lloyd George knew my father / Father knew Lloyd George" repeat ad infinitum!
Here in US we have the less wordy "George Washington Bridge" song: "George Washington Bridge / George Washington Bridge / etc. etc. etc."
Never heard "GWB"? Maybe we can get Chris Christie to sung it for us!
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
There are a number of important differences between the countries that means that an American movement won't necessarily translate as effectively over here - notably that the whole culture wars narrative hasn't gone nearly so far in the UK, and the corrosive drip drip drip of truly egregious racism cases (such as the horrendous killing of Breonna Taylor) simply isn't there. The British anti-racism movement still has plenty of accusations and examples of prejudice to work with, but the police aren't out there gunning down black people left, right and centre. In those big demos in London after the death of George Floyd, a meaningful number of protestors were dragging up the Mark Duggan case again which shows how few recent high profile incidents they have to work with.
Most people simply aren't furious or polarized enough for large numbers to stick with the UK BLM movement once it dawns on them just how radical their agenda actually is.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Why do you capitalise "Black"?
Fielder's choice really. Also capitalize "White" when talking about a group of people as opposed to a color - "Black voters" but "white paint"
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
I am not sure it is entirely about people realising what they are about in the UK but not in the US.
The huge difference between the UK and the US is that in the UK there are very few killings by the police overall - about 3 a year in total since 2000 and that of those, although there is a slight imbalance towards BAME victims, it is no where near the imbalance you see in the US.
62 people have died at the hands of the police in the UK since 2000. Of those 7 were terrorists in the active pursuit of an act of terror, 18 were from a BAME background and the rest - 35 - were white.
So in the end the 'Black Lives Matter' message is diluted over here because we don't generally have police going round killing black people. That is not to say there is not racism and injustice but once that message is watered down, people then start looking at BLM movement more critically.
Put more simply, if I were in the US I would be ashamed if I didn't support the BLM movement. Over here with relation to British policing, I think it is simply not an issue on anything like the same scale.
Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.
What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.
This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.
Nice to have good news.
Indeed. I remember seeing the mounted one in Salisbury Museum many years ago, a Wiltshire original IIRC.
I drove down the M4 the other day. There are now Red Kites virtually all the way, from Reading to Bristol. Glorious soaring raptors.
They are huge and they are noisy. I love them.
They also went extinct in the UK, England and Scotland, in 1880.
Boy are they BACK
I see Red Kites from our house. Lovely site.
And an Oystercatcher flew over on Tuesday. First time I've seen one here.
If there is one upside, just one, that might emerge from the Plague and the Mania, I hope it is this: the re-greening of the world and the rewilding of the British Isles.
I have seen almost every major animal on earth, in the wild
But I have never seen a wild boar or an otter in Britain, I hope to amend that soon.
And one day, maybe, a wolf or a lynx! In the Grampians, Northumberland, Dartmoor!
Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.
What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.
This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.
Nice to have good news.
Indeed. I remember seeing the mounted one in Salisbury Museum many years ago, a Wiltshire original IIRC.
I drove down the M4 the other day. There are now Red Kites virtually all the way, from Reading to Bristol. Glorious soaring raptors.
They are huge and they are noisy. I love them.
They also went extinct in the UK, England and Scotland, in 1880.
Boy are they BACK
I see Red Kites from our house. Lovely site.
And an Oystercatcher flew over on Tuesday. First time I've seen one here.
If there is one upside, just one, that might emerge from the Plague and the Mania, I hope it is this: the re-greening of the world and the rewilding of the British Isles.
I have seen almost every major animal on earth, in the wild
But I have never seen a wild boar or an otter in Britain, I hope to amend that soon.
And one day, maybe, a wolf or a lynx! In the Grampians, Northumberland, Dartmoor!
I hope so.
we have Red Kites circling over our meadow on the Lincolnshire Edge almost every day now. Along with half a dozen buzzards as well. Just to the North of us is a large rookery and I think they stay over our land because if they move north they get mobbed.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Why do you capitalise "Black"?
Fielder's choice really. Also capitalize "White" when talking about a group of people as opposed to a color - "Black voters" but "white paint"
It is now politically correct to capitalist "Black" but not "white".
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Comments
It will be like pulling our head out of the bucket of shit it's been dunked in for the last 4 years.
If we can imagine that.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Precisely. Which is why it pissed off yours truly when the Tick-Tockers claimed to be the reason for so many empty seat at Trumpsky's Tulsa fiasco.
NO, it was NOT a pointy-headed progressive plot that foiled the Donald. It was fact that his loyal legions simply did NOT show up. Gee, wonder why?
But bunch of self-serving techno twits decided to grab the credit instead and give Putinist a bit of window dressing. Thank you - NOT.
https://www.premierleague.com/this-is-pl/the-football/408969?articleId\u003d408969
At the very end of the programme on Sky, Neville stands up, shakes Riley's hand, and says "and thank you for the game against Arsenal."
Now that the virus has pretty much spread across the country we might begin to see the national infection rate decline as it has elsewhere.
In comparing the European experience it seems wiser to think of Texas and New York as different countries. Makes me wonder how the infection graph for Europe as a whole would look in comparison to the US.
Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.
Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.
That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!
Gregor Smith, Scotland's interim chief medical officer, said that he and counterparts from England, Wales and Northern Ireland had on Thursday “collectively agreed that further work was still necessary” to assess the risk presented by people travelling from other countries to the UK.
But Downing Street confirmed the quarantine announcement would come “this week”, and would set out the full details of the new traffic light scheme that was first outlined last Friday.
https://www.ft.com/content/aee759d4-8495-4203-8dd7-83531af64f03
(Not betting that way of course)
https://www.skysports.com/football/chelsea-vs-man-utd/report/230059
NYTimes
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
Sounds about right to me.
Looking at the Monmouth poll cross tabs (53-41 for Biden as headline), there's no regional split but a county split of some interest.
In the counties which Clinton won by more than 10 points, Biden is 30 points ahead. In the counties which Trump won by more than 10 points, he is nine points ahead. In the counties between (< 10 for either Trump or Clinton), Biden is up by 14 points.
That suggests Trump is being driven back into his strongholds and while that will win him enough states and EC votes to prevent a landslide, it won't save him from defeat currently.
The Arizona and Texas state polls are much better for Trump but even the 2% swing shown in Texas will cost Trump 75 EC votes which will be more than enough for Biden - I make it 308-230 to Biden on those numbers.
What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.
This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.
Nice to have good news.
I was looking into my Aunt and Uncle's Marriage in the 1950s. Talking to the local historian in the parish where he was Curate, the comment came back ... "he was one of the first Curates I knew when I joined the church choir in 1949".
That would make the chap about 80 now and his memories of when he was about 8.
Is this a separate investigation, or do they help in private actions?
He is an "elected" Tsar.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b03srqz5
When we are dealing with the extremes, it is difficult because the similarities are greater than the differences. Nevertheless those differences that there are would put Putin on the right, not the left.
They are huge and they are noisy. I love them.
They also went extinct in the UK, England and Scotland, in 1880.
Boy are they BACK
About time, given that they are based on the physical configuration of the French Assembly during the Revolution
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
Meanwhile a reported sighting of one in Camden Town turned out to be a spelling mistake.
Yet before you reach the extremes the distinction clearly has value - I cannot imagine that any PB reader would ever put your stream of posts on the left, as a good example.
PDX = Portland; BS = bullshit; PBers = residents of this parish; CHOP = Capitol Hill Organized Protest; FEC = Federal Election Commission
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
They want to abolish police, deconstruct the nuclear family, they are obsessed with race, they think a certain race ("whites") are racist and evil just because, they want to destroy the judicial/prison system, they want to dismantle capitalism, they are anti-Israel verging on anti-Semitic
Some of these positions are classically hard left, some are classically hard right.
As i say, the terms are becoming redundant. But I agree they will persist for quite a while, because we are so used to them
HK flu appeared in the summer of 68 in HK, but the main peak here was winter 69, at its peak 2-3 times "seasonal flu". Vaccine was on the market after 4 months. A lot of people had partial immunity because of exposure to the 57-58 flu.
I think the national polls need caution - I look at the geographical crosstabs when they are published and it's the Midwest where there seems to be most variation. I've seen one which showed Biden 30 points up in that region but the concensus is it's very close.
Biden doesn't need much swing to turn Clinton's EC deficit into a surplus - a 2% swing wins 75 EC votes for Biden which would be more than enough.
The Monmouth numbers confirm what I've been suspecting - both Trump and Biden are piling up votes where they don't need them but the crucial marginal counties are showing Biden 14 points up.
Yes, there could be "shy" Trump supporters in abundance and this has been peddled ever since the 1992 UK GE when Major's win was put down to "shy Tories" but polling is more sophisticated and while Trump fans point to NY-27 and a few other results they are more like Labour holds East Ham.
The Democrats took a solid GOP district in the Kentucky State Senate having won the gubernatorial election last December when all the polls were showing the incumbent GOP candidate would win by 2-5 points.
And do NOT worry, the girls & boys at Lincoln Project are NOT going to stop bringing up the Creeping Crud, looming recession, etc., etc.
Hope you & yours are healthy & happy, TimT!
Does anyone sane believe this story?
Ghislaine Maxwell, THE Most Wanted Person in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, was just living quietly in AN ENORMOUS MANSION in suburban New Hampshire, and no one noticed until now?
Or, even more ludicrously, the FBI was waiting for "just the right time" to arrest her, while giving her, cough cough, a good few months to fuck the fuck off, and stop embarrassing very important people.
It's bonkers. They knew she was there. They hesitated. Because powerful forces no not want her to go trial.
The same people that did not want Epstein to go to trial. So he didn't.
The only reason this isn't a bigger scandal is because Epstein (and his managers?) were clever enough to involve/implicate ALL sides of the the political debate. Clinton as well as Trump,
In addition, treatments are vastly improved, so fewer people in hospital will die
It's not remarkable, it makes total sense.
But here's the thing: the BLM protests actually affect very few people. I haven't seen a single thing in Los Angeles. There don't seem to be any more riots. In Seattle the commune has already been disbanded.
But let's assume that they flare up again. Even in those circumstances, how many people will actually see a real live BLM protestor? And by contrast, how many people will know someone who has been severely debilitated by CV-19?
Is this real or someone messing about?
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1278775456477650944?s=20
https://twitter.com/ManCity/status/1278773225649057797
And an Oystercatcher flew over on Tuesday. First time I've seen one here.
Here in US we have the less wordy "George Washington Bridge" song:
"George Washington Bridge / George Washington Bridge / etc. etc. etc."
Never heard "GWB"? Maybe we can get Chris Christie to sung it for us!
Most people simply aren't furious or polarized enough for large numbers to stick with the UK BLM movement once it dawns on them just how radical their agenda actually is.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/02/herman-cain-hospitalized-with-coronavirus-348190
The huge difference between the UK and the US is that in the UK there are very few killings by the police overall - about 3 a year in total since 2000 and that of those, although there is a slight imbalance towards BAME victims, it is no where near the imbalance you see in the US.
62 people have died at the hands of the police in the UK since 2000. Of those 7 were terrorists in the active pursuit of an act of terror, 18 were from a BAME background and the rest - 35 - were white.
So in the end the 'Black Lives Matter' message is diluted over here because we don't generally have police going round killing black people. That is not to say there is not racism and injustice but once that message is watered down, people then start looking at BLM movement more critically.
Put more simply, if I were in the US I would be ashamed if I didn't support the BLM movement. Over here with relation to British policing, I think it is simply not an issue on anything like the same scale.
I have seen almost every major animal on earth, in the wild
But I have never seen a wild boar or an otter in Britain, I hope to amend that soon.
And one day, maybe, a wolf or a lynx! In the Grampians, Northumberland, Dartmoor!
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
https://twitter.com/trackingsharks/status/1277986456489750529
we have Red Kites circling over our meadow on the Lincolnshire Edge almost every day now. Along with half a dozen buzzards as well. Just to the North of us is a large rookery and I think they stay over our land because if they move north they get mobbed.
The logic is hard to follow but it is what it is.
https://twitter.com/KaileeScales/status/1275954877949267968?s=20