Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: How Trump and Biden are viewing COVID19 very different

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: How Trump and Biden are viewing COVID19 very differently

Via https://t.co/M3stcEAPxE How supporters of Biden and Trump have very different views of coronavirus pic.twitter.com/aE1xasoPjR

Read the full story here

Comments

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Which is a glimmer of hope for Trump: if the virus is seen to be under control by election day, then he might very well get credit.
  • Options
    Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    rcs1000 said:

    Which is a glimmer of hope for Trump: if the virus is seen to be under control by election day, then he might very well get credit.

    Yes! My way of thinking!

    Is Trump the real favourite of USA2020?
  • Options
    FPT "thoroughly Johnsoned"

    Congrats on you unexpected fluency in American slang!
  • Options
    Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    #MAGA2 TRUMP 2020
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Which is a glimmer of hope for Trump: if the virus is seen to be under control by election day, then he might very well get credit.

    Pretty big "IF" methinks.

    Of course in August 1944 "home by Christmas" was the matra west of the Siegfried Line.
  • Options
    Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411
    Imagine if Trump increases his majority #USA2020
  • Options
    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.
  • Options
    Ave_it said:

    Imagine if Trump increases his majority #USA2020

    YOU are Jared Kushner and I claim my free Shirley Temple from the Trumpsky International Golf Links clubhouse.
  • Options

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Will NOT argue with you on this.
  • Options
    Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,411

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Will NOT argue with you on this.
    A lot of East Coast/West Coast USA potentially heading for disappointment Nov 4...
  • Options
    Ave_it said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Will NOT argue with you on this.
    A lot of East Coast/West Coast USA potentially heading for disappointment Nov 4...
    At least one East Coast reality TV narcissist hopefully heading for disappointment.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,533
    edited August 2020

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
  • Options
    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,389
    Americans - how big a worry are the riots in Portland and Seattle at the moment? What I've seen on Twitter looks awful, but Twitter is not known for its balance or sense of proportion.
  • Options
    Re the tale I told FPT re: congressman getting some tail in his DC office, note that the other congressman who observed this intra-office "exchange" also found himself with a significant zipper problem - and one that ended his political career.

    During Mike Lowry's first and only term as Governor of Washington, he was accused of sexual harassment by a young women who was a senior aide in his administration. When he did NOT deny the charge, and instead agreed to settle out of court, his poll (pun intended) numbers fell to the vanishing point.

    Lowry was NOT helped by the fact that the State Police observed him getting a blowjob in a car from another "staffer" who was apparently eager to "serve" the Governor.

    Root (pun again intended) of Lowry's trouble was alcoholism. When I first got to WA State, he was a hero to liberal Democrats in general and enviros in particular.

    Indeed, the latter were so smitten that, even after his fall from grace as Gov, they ran him for Commissioner of Public Lands, a statewide elective position in charge of state natural resources dept. The (utterly predictable) result was he not only LOST the Democratic nomination, but helped to elect a Republican COL.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,533
    edited August 2020

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Maybe it's best if I don't make predictions. Ignore the previous post.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
  • Options

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Apart from needing to lose, surely the Trump/Boris parallels are closer.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Apart from needing to lose, surely the Trump/Boris parallels are closer.
    Trump is closer to Farage than Boris, though yes Sanders was the US Corbyn
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,389
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    I'd like to see the USA leading the free world. Trump doesn't really give the impression of doing that. I worry about what will become of European-American alliances with both sides looking increasinly unenthusiastic. Good news for Russia, bad news for those for whom good news for Russia is bad news.
    Mind you, he was right about China when no-one else was.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Americans - how big a worry are the riots in Portland and Seattle at the moment? What I've seen on Twitter looks awful, but Twitter is not known for its balance or sense of proportion.

    Portland is worse than Seattle. The impact on voters in both cities has been similar: more voters are mad at the cops - and Trumpsky & his agents provaceteur - than at BLM or even the lunatic fringe.

    Suburban voters in PDX & SEA environs are also trending this way. However, there MAY be a bit of a backlash among exurban & rural voters.

    Note that both Oregon & Washington are solid for Biden-Harris. IMHO, only truly contested congressional race in these two states is WA CD03, currently held by incumbent Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is being challenged for 2nd time running by Carolyn Long.

    August 2020 primary results were encouraging for JHB, and disappointing for Long. However, this is in part due to turnout differential that favored GOP due to lack of any serious Democratic challenge to incumbent Gov. Jay Inslee as opposed to a host of contenders for GOP.

    As predicted (or rather foreordained) Inslee was 1st place in field of over three dozen candidates. Second in Top Two primary was anti-gun control activist Loren Culp, who pulled out a substantial rural, rightwing vote.

  • Options
    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1295853939955568640

    Nah not Johnson's fault, can't be his fault. He is blameless.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Apart from needing to lose, surely the Trump/Boris parallels are closer.
    Trump is closer to Farage than Boris, though yes Sanders was the US Corbyn
    Think that is unfair to Bernie, whom yours truly did NOT support this year (though did in 2016, in hopes of sending Hilary a message). For all his faults, Sanders was NEVER a hard-left, hard-edged ideologue a la Corbyn.

    Indeed, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he was one democratic socialist who worked well with the local chamber of commerce. Not ALL the time, but more times than you might think.

    He's closer to the late John Smith than the politically dead Jeremy Corbyn.

  • Options

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think 2016 was Johnson vs Corbyn and USA 2020 is a preview for what might be coming with Starmer vs Johnson in 2024
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    Apart from needing to lose, surely the Trump/Boris parallels are closer.
    Trump is closer to Farage than Boris, though yes Sanders was the US Corbyn
    Not really, Sanders was to the right of Corbyn on many issues. Politically Sanders is closer to Starmer.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,533
    edited August 2020

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1295853939955568640

    Nah not Johnson's fault, can't be his fault. He is blameless.

    They're all to blame. It's a government-wide failure.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,389

    Cookie said:

    Americans - how big a worry are the riots in Portland and Seattle at the moment? What I've seen on Twitter looks awful, but Twitter is not known for its balance or sense of proportion.

    Portland is worse than Seattle. The impact on voters in both cities has been similar: more voters are mad at the cops - and Trumpsky & his agents provaceteur - than at BLM or even the lunatic fringe.

    Suburban voters in PDX & SEA environs are also trending this way. However, there MAY be a bit of a backlash among exurban & rural voters.

    Note that both Oregon & Washington are solid for Biden-Harris. IMHO, only truly contested congressional race in these two states is WA CD03, currently held by incumbent Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is being challenged for 2nd time running by Carolyn Long.

    August 2020 primary results were encouraging for JHB, and disappointing for Long. However, this is in part due to turnout differential that favored GOP due to lack of any serious Democratic challenge to incumbent Gov. Jay Inslee as opposed to a host of contenders for GOP.

    As predicted (or rather foreordained) Inslee was 1st place in field of over three dozen candidates. Second in Top Two primary was anti-gun control activist Loren Culp, who pulled out a substantial rural, rightwing vote.

    Thanks SSI - are the cops in Portland (and Seattle) really that bad - that even after weeks of rioting and destruction public sympathy is with the rioters? From the perspective of someone who's never been there, both gave the impression of fairly peaceful cities where not much bad happened.
    Again, should emphasise that I have little knowledge of what is actually going on!
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    So you think having a US president who is a Putinst tool is NOT affecting the rest of the world???
  • Options
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53745009

    Apparently a good mark for a Trump win is this, so said the Telegraph the other day
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    So you think having a US president who is a Putinst tool is NOT affecting the rest of the world???
    Has he invaded or bombed any new countries? No.

    It is up to Europe to spend more on its own defence v Putin
  • Options
    Of course HYUFD supports Trump, God help us all
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    Yes, well, all that ammonium nitrate didn't really affect Beirut either. Until it did.

    And a second term Trump will know he can get away with it, and won't be constrained by thoughts of getting reelected in 2024. Or alternatively, will be constrained by thoughts of getting reelected in 2024.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Ave_it said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Which is a glimmer of hope for Trump: if the virus is seen to be under control by election day, then he might very well get credit.

    Yes! My way of thinking!

    Is Trump the real favourite of USA2020?
    The problem is that he has an awful lot of ground to catch up, and less than 80 days to go.

    He might do it, but the current odds (which imply a 35-40% chance) look a little skinny to me.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    Of course HYUFD supports Trump, God help us all

    I don't, as I have said I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders, I would vote for Biden over Trump
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Of course HYUFD supports Trump, God help us all

    I don't, as I have said I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders, I would vote for Biden over Trump
    The fact you'd ever consider voting for the orange baby is worrying enough
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,389
    Andy_JS said:

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1295853939955568640

    Nah not Johnson's fault, can't be his fault. He is blameless.

    They're all to blame. It's a government-wide failure.
    There really was no way of this not happening once you decide education can just stop. It was a ludicrous decision to treat education as non-essential. The fact that most of Europe were doing the same doesn't make it any better.

    While we're flinging the blame around, I'd also note that the teaching unions seemed adamant that this was the right approach. I think the universities were also on board.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1295853939955568640

    Nah not Johnson's fault, can't be his fault. He is blameless.

    Exactly, he's on holiday.

    Boris must have an appalling Bradford factor with all his absenses.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    Maybe but as Wisconsin and Florida are the tipping point states if that poll is right the election is literally neck and neck in the Electoral College
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to come
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    Steady on with your "Mexican immigrant"(s)!
  • Options
    Just checking in to see if HYUFD is still going on about his wet dream Tory Labour alliance
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    edited August 2020
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    Just checking in to see if HYUFD is still going on about his wet dream Tory Labour alliance

    No wet dream, just a Unionist Alliance to beat the SNP.

    More for Labour's benefit if anything as without Scotland the Tories will dominate Westminster
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to come
    Not true in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - 1966 - nor 1945.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2020

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
    It isn't even in recession English voters will vote for the Tories over a centre left Labour opposition as they did in February 1974 and 1992.

    Without Scotland Labour will almost certainly never win again regardless of economic circumstance without a Blairite leader and certainly not be in any longer than 1 term e.g. after 1945 the Tories won in England in 1950 and after 1966 the Tories won in 1970
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited August 2020
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
    It isn't even in recession English voters will vote for the Tories over a centre left Labour opposition as they did in 1974 and 1992.

    Without Scotland Labour will almost certainly never win again regardless of economic circumstance without a Blairite leader and certainly not be in any longer than 1 term e.g. after 1945 the Tories won in England in 1950 and after 1966 the Tories won in 1970
    They did not do that in 1974 - and I suspect had Thatcher still been Tory leader they would not have done so in 1992.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to come
    Not true in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - 1966 - nor 1945.
    66% of those under Blair, so Labour have only won twice since WW2 in England without Blair as leader.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to come
    Not true in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - 1966 - nor 1945.
    66% of those under Blair, so Labour have only won twice since WW2 in England without Blair as leader.
    60% actually.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
    It isn't even in recession English voters will vote for the Tories over a centre left Labour opposition as they did in 1974 and 1992.

    Without Scotland Labour will almost certainly never win again regardless of economic circumstance without a Blairite leader and certainly not be in any longer than 1 term e.g. after 1945 the Tories won in England in 1950 and after 1966 the Tories won in 1970
    They did not do that in 1974 - and I suspect had Thatcher still been Tory leader they would not have done so in 1992.
    Wrong, Heath won a majority of English seats in February 1974.

    Wilson only became PM in 1964 and February 1974 thanks to Scottish MPs
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
    It isn't even in recession English voters will vote for the Tories over a centre left Labour opposition as they did in 1974 and 1992.

    Without Scotland Labour will almost certainly never win again regardless of economic circumstance without a Blairite leader and certainly not be in any longer than 1 term e.g. after 1945 the Tories won in England in 1950 and after 1966 the Tories won in 1970
    They did not do that in 1974 - and I suspect had Thatcher still been Tory leader they would not have done so in 1992.
    Wrong, Heath won a majority of English seats in February 1974.

    Wilson only became PM in 1964 and February 1974 thanks to Scottish MPs
    But Heath did not have a majority in England , Wales & Northern Ireland in Feb 1974.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    Maybe but as Wisconsin and Florida are the tipping point states if that poll is right the election is literally neck and neck in the Electoral College
    These are just my gut feelings, so could be completely wrong:

    - Florida now allows ex-felons to vote. These are disproportionately black men. I'm not sure if this will have a big effect on the result, but it probably adds half a point to the Democrats. That said, Florida was a very poor result for the Dems in 2018. Why should 2020 be any better?

    - Trump's approval ratings in Wisconsin are worse than in any other battleground state. The Dems did *really* well there in 2018. I can't see it as any thing other than a Dem pickup in 2020.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to cone8
    Another sweeping statement. I am not sure, unless they can keep cheap credit lines running to the next election and beyond, the incumbent government are going to be able to explain away post-Covid economic armageddon.

    I have the same problem with Trump being saved by his wonder drug for Covid-19 come November. It's the economy.
    It isn't even in recession English voters will vote for the Tories over a centre left Labour opposition as they did in 1974 and 1992.

    Without Scotland Labour will almost certainly never win again regardless of economic circumstance without a Blairite leader and certainly not be in any longer than 1 term e.g. after 1945 the Tories won in England in 1950 and after 1966 the Tories won in 1970
    They did not do that in 1974 - and I suspect had Thatcher still been Tory leader they would not have done so in 1992.
    Wrong, Heath won a majority of English seats in February 1974.

    Wilson only became PM in 1964 and February 1974 thanks to Scottish MPs
    But Heath did not have a majority in England , Wales & Northern Ireland in Feb 1974.
    Heath had a majority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in February 1974 once you combined Tory and Ulster Unionist MPs
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    It's one of those awful polls that pop up every now and then.

    Polling finished on 4 August. 400 voters across 4 battleground states. 100 per state.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Labour needs to win back voters who have switched to the SNP. That will not be achieved by teaming up with the Tories! Labour needs to maximise the difference with the Tories.

    No they do not as the SNP will support a Labour PM over the Tories at UK level.

    However if Labour refuse a Unionist Alliance with the Tories leading to a Nationalist majority at Holyrood, indyref2 and Scottish independence then without Scottish MPs the Tories will dominate Westminster for decades to come
    Not true in 2005 - 2001 - 1997 - 1966 - nor 1945.
    66% of those under Blair, so Labour have only won twice since WW2 in England without Blair as leader.
    Another way of putting it is that *all* of Labour's leaders who won elections since the war achieved an English majority at least once.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    edited August 2020
    rcs1000 said:


    - Florida now allows ex-felons to vote. These are disproportionately black men. I'm not sure if this will have a big effect on the result, but it probably adds half a point to the Democrats.

    Slightly old data (and for current felons not ex-) but:
    image

    There seem to be barely more black people than white people in prison in Florida. They're *disproportionately* black compared to the Florida population. However, I imagine the white people are disproportionately low-education, and low-education white people are a *very* Trumpy demographic - maybe not quite as Trumpy as black people are Dem, but still very Trumpy.

    There are also Latinos, but IIUC a lot of Florida Latinos are Cuban, who are historically quite GOP.

    Add that ex-felons don't vote much even when they're allowed to and I'd be surprised if it nets the Dems as much as half a point.
  • Options
    I give up. A Ladbrokes punter won £150,000 backing horses numbered 10 (his lucky number)

    A plucky racing punter has scooped a whopping £150k from backing five horses that were all carrying the No.10 saddlecloth.

    The customer placed the 50p each-way five-fold bet on Saturday evening’s racing and is now richer to the tune of £151,488.10.

    14/1 shot Mandarian Monarch kicked off the winning No.10 selections in the 18:45 at Tramore, followed by Morrooj (6/1) and Sir Canford (12/1) over at Chepstow.

    Fellow No.10 horse in the racecard, Red Vermillion, beat Willie Mullins’ odds-on poke in the 19:45 at Tramore before Das Kapital (14/1) wrapped up proceedings in South Wales, scooping a cool £150k from just £5.

    https://news.ladbrokes.com/horse-racing/punter-lands-150k-no-10-horses.html
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    It's one of those awful polls that pop up every now and then.

    Polling finished on 4 August. 400 voters across 4 battleground states. 100 per state.
    Paid for by a conservative group, they probably stashed it away in the hope of taking a bit of the shine off Biden at conference time.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,236
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump is America's Corbyn; he needs to lose and lose big.

    He needs to lose so big that it salts the earth for anyone like him going forwards.

    I think it's 50/50 at the moment.
    50/50 that he loses?

    Or 50/50 that he loses big?

    I would say 40% he loses by a landslide, 40% he loses narrowly, 20% he wins narrowly.

    The 20% terrifies me.
    Why? Unless you are a Mexican immigrant the Trump presidency has not really affected the rest of the world, certainly not in the way a George W Bush or even Obama presidency did.

    I can understand why liberal Americans hate him and yes he could do more about climate change but beyond that he has not really affected Europe at all
    So apart from doing everything to try to ensure the likely destruction of human civilization in the not too distant future he hasn't affected us at all. Top geezer.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/justin-trudeau-scandal-prorogue-parliament

    Going to the Supreme Court? I can’t think of any recent precedents...
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    Maybe but as Wisconsin and Florida are the tipping point states if that poll is right the election is literally neck and neck in the Electoral College
    These are just my gut feelings, so could be completely wrong:

    - Florida now allows ex-felons to vote. These are disproportionately black men. I'm not sure if this will have a big effect on the result, but it probably adds half a point to the Democrats. That said, Florida was a very poor result for the Dems in 2018. Why should 2020 be any better?

    - Trump's approval ratings in Wisconsin are worse than in any other battleground state. The Dems did *really* well there in 2018. I can't see it as any thing other than a Dem pickup in 2020.
    Why should Dems do better in Florida? In state with ABOVE average number of seniors - many originally from Northeast US - one word sums it up: COVID
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,236
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    Maybe but as Wisconsin and Florida are the tipping point states if that poll is right the election is literally neck and neck in the Electoral College
    Hmmm that's a tricky one. What polling is more likely to be righ: this one poll paid for by Trump campaigners showing Wisconsin tied, or all the other polls showing Biden an average of almost 7% ahead.

    There's a long way to go, but if the election were tomorrow Biden would almost certainly win.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:
    While the Arizona and Florida numbers are certainly possible, I am very sceptical of the Wisconsin one.
    Maybe but as Wisconsin and Florida are the tipping point states if that poll is right the election is literally neck and neck in the Electoral College
    These are just my gut feelings, so could be completely wrong:

    - Florida now allows ex-felons to vote. These are disproportionately black men. I'm not sure if this will have a big effect on the result, but it probably adds half a point to the Democrats. That said, Florida was a very poor result for the Dems in 2018. Why should 2020 be any better?

    - Trump's approval ratings in Wisconsin are worse than in any other battleground state. The Dems did *really* well there in 2018. I can't see it as any thing other than a Dem pickup in 2020.
    Why should Dems do better in Florida? In state with ABOVE average number of seniors - many originally from Northeast US - one word sums it up: COVID
    The other factor is the increased number of Puerto Ricans in Florida, not keen on Trump at all. I don't think Trump will get 200 EV.

    In the unlikely event of Trump getting re elected, he will be hamstrung by a Dem Congress and possibly Senate. He can pack the SCOTUS, but that really affects domestic social issues rather than anything outside the USA. A further Trump presidency will trash America further, but probably won't impact us much.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,578
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    New thread
This discussion has been closed.