They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
The fact that Texas is trending purple is something to give the US Republicans sleepless nights. And this is a long term trend...
There’s lots of Californians moving to Texas because California is turning to sh....
There’s lots of Texans telling the newcomers not to bring their sh.. politics with them!
Maybe all the talk of people fed up with the state and leaving is just that.
The Californian economy has actually overtaken that of the UK. With the behemoths in Silicon Valley still growing like start ups it will continue to pummel ahead.
None of this necessarily makes it a nice place to live of course. The stories about the homeless in San Fran, for example, are heartbreaking.
You're right. Los Angeles, with its perfect weather, its sea and mountains and great restaurants, is all absolute hell hole.
Some parts of it are, others aren't. The shitty parts of LA felt like a third world nation, it was very odd.
Indeed, Beverley Hills and Bel Air and Malibu and Santa Monica and the Pacific Palisades maybe paradise, much of downtown and South and East Los Angeles is full of crime and homelessness and poverty
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way.
Now all you can hear them saying is Black Lives Matter, which the white working classes are hearing as Only Black Lives Matter, and WWC Lives Don’t Matter.
Projecting your instincts again.
And don't get me wrong you may be on the money - but we await the evidence.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Precisely, which is the problem. Asymmetric devolution was always insane, the West Lothian Question always needed an answer.
It's quite amusing how you can see the logic here (quite rightly), and yet be so blind about the ludicrous and loathsome FPTP. I wonder if it's because the Tories benefit in both cases? Anything to advance the Glorious 1000-year Rentier Reich?
A question for you: in the late 80s and early 90s quite a number of European countries, some of them relatively well-educated and with long traditions of science, literature and learning, had the chance to design their electoral systems from scratch. How many of them opted for FPTP?
Anyway, enjoy your eternal system. It will never change here until democratic society collapses, which it will play a part in hastening.
I am a long way from being a tory fan boy and I despise pr for much the same reasons. I am damn sure if in 2015 if cameron had needed those pesky lib dems again he would have traded away the referendum like a shot in the coalition deal. In fact I almost suspect that was the plan.
I think I would also be right in suspecting that in 2015 a lot of tory votes were purely because he had put a referendum in the manifesto.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way.
Now all you can hear them saying is Black Lives Matter, which the white working classes are hearing as Only Black Lives Matter, and WWC Lives Don’t Matter.
Projecting your instincts again.
And don't get me wrong you may be on the money - but we await the evidence.
Did you watch the Michael Moore video I posted earlier on this thread?
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Moore's brand of politics relies on being pessimistic about both main parties. Obviously there's no position for him as left-wing truth teller about Trump given almost the entire Democratic Party, a raft of generally independent commentators and even some Republicans correctly think the man is a dangerous lunatic, so he's loudly down on Biden.
Which is not to say he might not be right on the result - it's going to be a nasty, tumultuous campaign and the Republicans have some advantages that somewhat soften the impact of very good polling for the Dems. But his position would be immovable even if Biden were Obama, JFK, and Oprah rolled into one.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
The definition of a set of Battleground States should result in a sample where the two candidates are at a dead heat when the result of the election is a dead heat.
This supposed set of Battleground States doesn't do that. Biden wins comfortably if he's tied in this set of states.
Trump won the Electoral College 304 to 227 with a 3% lead in those battleground states in 2016.
If Biden leads in those states by just 1% that is only a 2% swing from Trump to Biden since 2016 which would see Biden pick up Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and maybe Arizona and North Carolina.
That might see him win but would still be only around the same margin for Biden that Obama had over Romney in 2012 and much closer than the 2008 EC lead Obama had over McCain and it only takes a small bounce for Trump after his convention for it to be neck and neck again.
You also have to remember a lot of state polls in 2016 underestimated the Trump voteshare compared to what he actually got
It's a much wider margin than 2016, even though it's closer than 2016 in the so-called Battleground States. How does that make sense?
Conclusion - they chose a set of states to give a closer result in the poll. Just because they call them the Battleground States we don't have to accept that.
They are, all the top 10 closest Trump states are included as well as some of the closest Hillary states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico
Given how far away Texas, Iowa and Ohio are from the tipping point state than you should also be including states like Virginia and Colorado to make it balanced.
What they've done is to skew it to fool people into thinking it's closer than it is.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
The fact that Texas is trending purple is something to give the US Republicans sleepless nights. And this is a long term trend...
There’s lots of Californians moving to Texas because California is turning to sh....
There’s lots of Texans telling the newcomers not to bring their sh.. politics with them!
Maybe all the talk of people fed up with the state and leaving is just that.
The Californian economy has actually overtaken that of the UK. With the behemoths in Silicon Valley still growing like start ups it will continue to pummel ahead.
None of this necessarily makes it a nice place to live of course. The stories about the homeless in San Fran, for example, are heartbreaking.
You're right. Los Angeles, with its perfect weather, its sea and mountains and great restaurants, is all absolute hell hole.
Ah but you're rich Robert. For the poor it is not so nice.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
If you put a uniform swing on the 2016 result to put it on a knife-edge, then the states that are within 5% of that knife-edge are: Arizona Florida Georgia Maine Michigan Minnesota Nebraska 2nd Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Pennsylvania Wisconsin You can argue demographic change would shift this about a bit, but not to justify adding Texas, Ohio and Iowa. Bit baffled that New Mexico was included, too.
My set of battleground states still has a bit of a skew due to how they're distributed, but they're close enough that if Trump leads in an aggregate poll of them he wins overall.
Any news on the Yorkshire lockdown zone? Are we able to rejoin polite society yet?
Has Yorkshire ever joined polite society?
I might have to defend my fellow Northerners there (Having been told yesterday being slightly north of Guildford makes me a Northerner. Still haven't bought my flat cap yet though)
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way.
Now all you can hear them saying is Black Lives Matter, which the white working classes are hearing as Only Black Lives Matter, and WWC Lives Don’t Matter.
Projecting your instincts again.
And don't get me wrong you may be on the money - but we await the evidence.
Did you watch the Michael Moore video I posted earlier on this thread?
Not yet but I do plan to.
I don't have a high opinion of him though. Notwithstanding that he can be insightful at times.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
And the same with Theresa May in 2017. For all the narrative about a disastrous campaign and her being unpopular it just isn't true. A 20% leap in the Tory vote on top of a 2015 vote that gave them their first majority in 23 years is not a crap performance from someone unpopular.
But like America we don't have a national vote. Piling up votes in safe seats and narrowly losing others is crap targeting. Where both the Biden and Trump campaigns have it right is that their base hates the other base. But the soft voters and the middle ground? They can stampede away from Trump and he can still win if they don't do so equally.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
OK so I will be £20 @ 3/1 that the Electoral college will not be closer than in 2016. So if it is closer than 2016 I will pay you £20 - if it isn't closer than in 2016 you will pay me £60.
I know vv little about polling, could someone enlighten me....
When voters indicate they would be untruthful does this mean:
1. They fall in to the don't knows (a white lie) 2. They fall into the opposing candidates column (a deliberate mistruth)
I presume that polling methodology must be accounting for the majority of this error through leading questions i.e 'who do you think your neighbour is voting for' and known discrepancies from previous elections.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
I guess I'm one of the people that wouldn't mind a bit of Empire back - especially if I could be Viceroy of India.
However one thing that we need to fall in with the Euro mob on is the metric system. I'll hate to see mph go, but go it must.
I gave someone directions the other day, and said it was 200yds up the road - I then realised I really don't judge things in yards, and the recipient of my wisdom was undoubtedly baffled.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Aha - so that's bang on my current call. Trump to lose by about 150. Not much buffer for me there. If he loses but not quite by that I won't be able to call it a landslide. That would be irritating. But ok it's good to know the rules upfront.
I know vv little about polling, could someone enlighten me....
When voters indicate they would be untruthful does this mean:
1. They fall in to the don't knows (a white lie) 2. They fall into the opposing candidates column (a deliberate mistruth)
I presume that polling methodology must be accounting for the majority of this error through leading questions i.e 'who do you think your neighbour is voting for' and known discrepancies from previous elections.
On the 'who do you think the neighbours are voting for' trump has a lead over Biden.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
(Google's and answers own question on good old SABRE roads)
- They are probably not exact 100 metres - Where roads have routed differently from plan or rebuilt (e.g. A1(M) new sections) they've probably been stretched out or contracted rather than renumbered. - They replaced half furlong (100.56m) markers and may be marked in Kms but still spaced in furlongs/miles.
Considering about a third of those aged 25 to 29 year olds are still living with parents or grandparents that cuts down on the likelihood of it all being housing. Nor do you need a huge space to wfh like some are making out. I live in a one room appartment and manage quite happily in a space thats about 180 square feet
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
OK so I will be £20 @ 3/1 that the Electoral college will not be closer than in 2016. So if it is closer than 2016 I will pay you £20 - if it isn't closer than in 2016 you will pay me £60.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
I guess I'm one of the people that wouldn't mind a bit of Empire back - especially if I could be Viceroy of India.
However one thing that we need to fall in with the Euro mob on is the metric system. I'll hate to see mph go, but go it must.
I gave someone directions the other day, and said it was 200yds up the road - I then realised I really don't judge things in yards, and the recipient of my wisdom was undoubtedly baffled.
Ireland did that about 15 years ago.
The speed limit on the M7 out of Dublin was 120, but I was damned if I could get my rental car to go much over 110.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
I guess I'm one of the people that wouldn't mind a bit of Empire back - especially if I could be Viceroy of India.
As long you were elected by Universal Suffrage, why not? :
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
(Google's and answers own question on good old SABRE roads)
- They are probably not exact 100 metres - Where roads have routed differently from plan or rebuilt (e.g. A1(M) new sections) they've probably been stretched out or contracted rather than renumbered. - They replaced half furlong (100.56m) markers and may be marked in Kms but still spaced in furlongs/miles.
Britain, eh?
"Let's just say we'd like to avoid any Imperial entanglements."
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
OK so I will be £20 @ 3/1 that the Electoral college will not be closer than in 2016. So if it is closer than 2016 I will pay you £20 - if it isn't closer than in 2016 you will pay me £60.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
What d'ye think the motivations are for this now constant 'it's much, much closer than ya think' narrative being pushed? I can see filthy libs wanting to keep their base on its toes but lots of it also from the right. Just morale?
Facts, if it was a Biden landslide we were heading for he should be at least 5 to 10%+ ahead in the battleground states, not just 1% ahead
Depends what we're calling a landslide.
How much EC margin qualifies iyo?
150 EC votes or more as per 2008, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1972, 1964, 1956, 1952, 1944 etc
Aha - so that's bang on my current call. Trump to lose by about 150. Not much buffer for me there. If he loses but not quite by that I won't be able to call it a landslide. That would be irritating. But ok it's good to know the rules upfront.
Under 200 ECVs ? My guess (FWIW) is a bit over 200 - and I only have pin money on that.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
And Biden has a 1% lead?
How many of those 15 states were won by Hillary?
4.75 (allowing for Maine) I think.
Texas and Georgia are clearly there for distortion purposes. Good spot by @Alistair
A very good spot. It transforms the narrative.
And begs the question - why is Michael Moore ramping for Trump?
Is it because he wants him to win so he can make some angry films about how how awful he is?
He’s probably trying to stop the Democrats getting as complacent as they were in 2016, drum it into them that they need to work the marginal states hard.
Yes, Moore correctly spotted Hillary was in trouble in the rustbelt in October 2016 well before polling day and Trump was making inroads.
She largely ignored him and focused on Arizona and Texas and Florida and big fundraisers in California
He husband also told her to get a new message out to rural, white voters and the rust belt and campaign there.
He was ignored.
iirc the data kids running the campaign said he was so last century.
The data kids basically said the white working class were so last century too, not surprisingly they responded in an unfavourable way. Bill correctly spotted the message from the white working class revolt of Brexit could happen in the US, the Clinton campaign just redoubled on minorities and college educated coastal voters.
'Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election,' said the source. 'As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
Hillary's team basically repeated the same mistake they'd made against Barack Obama in the primaries 12 years earlier: piling up votes but not delegates.
Bill always was a ton of miles better....
I realise the US has resisted the metric system, but still.
On the 405, as you leave Los Angeles towards Ventura, there is one of those Distance To signs that are on motorways/freeways the world over.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
Proximity to Mexico maybe? Like the "drive on the left" signs near the ports in the UK.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
The 100m markers along the UKs entire motorway network (and the blue signs that have appeared in the last 15 years or so) still get me whenever I become aware of them. Who did that in quite that way and why? I'm sure the emergency services could have worked perfectly well with Imperial markers.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
I guess I'm one of the people that wouldn't mind a bit of Empire back - especially if I could be Viceroy of India.
As long you were elected by Universal Suffrage, why not? :
If I can count on your vote Sunil then that'll be two. Only several billion to go and I'll romp home.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
OK so I will be £20 @ 3/1 that the Electoral college will not be closer than in 2016. So if it is closer than 2016 I will pay you £20 - if it isn't closer than in 2016 you will pay me £60.
Is that agreed?
Yes
@HYUFD You've been absolubtely done over. Further than 2016 is broadly a 1-3 shot, not a 3-1 one. From Betfair Biden ECVs
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
And it also justifies concerns about people coming here in the first place. A lot of people know that once they are here it is very difficult for the authorities to do anything about it.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
IF Texas, Iowa and Georgia count as battlegrounds then Trump is fucked.
They are battlegrounds, all 3 were in the 18 closest states in 2016 and the ten closest states won by Trump.
There were 32 US states with bigger margins for Trump or Hillary than Texas, Iowa or Georgia had
Trump won that set of 15 States by an aggregate 3.5%, which provides a bit of context for a 1% Biden lead.
It suggests the Electoral College will definitely be closer than 2016, however it also suggests Trump could still scrape an EC win
"Definitely"?
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
I will gladly bet it will be closer than 2016 in the Electoral College, say 3-1
OK so I will be £20 @ 3/1 that the Electoral college will not be closer than in 2016. So if it is closer than 2016 I will pay you £20 - if it isn't closer than in 2016 you will pay me £60.
Is that agreed?
Yes
@HYUFD You've been absolubtely done over. Further than 2016 is broadly a 1-3 shot, not a 3-1 one.
239 or below + £19.27
240-269 -£60.00
270-299 -£60.03
300-329 +£19.27
Well I am not really bothered, it is only £60 at most even if I lose and if I win that is just a bonus but I am confident I will win and it will be very close in the EC ie 240 to 299 EC votes either way
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
Them activist migrant lawyers have a lot to answer to.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
Them activist migrant lawyers have a lot to answer to.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
Them activist migrant lawyers have a lot to answer to.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
That’s what happens pretty much everywhere else. If you want to appeal, you can do it from abroad and at your own expense.
The U.K. process never seems to be able to produce a ‘final’ decision.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
And it also justifies concerns about people coming here in the first place. A lot of people know that once they are here it is very difficult for the authorities to do anything about it.
Indeed. My elder daughter is very active (as a volunteer) in helping those immigrants who are stuck at Calais and tries to set them up with lawyers to assist them either there or in this country if they make it over.
She tells me that most of the official camps have been closed which has resulted in people rough camping where they can. The approach of the French police is that this is illegal and they will regularly raid them confiscating their tents and sleeping bags, leaving them exposed to the elements with no protection.
Most of the tents and sleeping bags are provided by charities. I am told that these charities used to "tidy up" after festivals where hundreds of people leave their tents in situ because they can't be arsed taking them home. The lack of festivals this year has resulted in a real shortage of tents.
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
If these are the choices I vote for being a soft touch but humane and decent but I can't pretend that there are not a lot of people who are going to be annoyed by our failures to act.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
That’s what happens pretty much everywhere else. If you want to appeal, you can do it from abroad and at your own expense.
The U.K. process never seems to be able to produce a ‘final’ decision.
Personally I would make it fail the initial claim > straight to remand so you don't disappear, 3 months to appeal. Then either dont appeal or fail the appeal on the plane.
Fair to them that gives them sufficient time I would have thought to get an appeal through
Oh my days. I explicitly asked Betfair not to settle state markets for a while a while back btw for precisely this sort of reason. CNN "calling" a state may well be wrong.
I have been banging on about this for a while. There will be MASSIVE in play opportunities to back Biden at stupid odds for state betting. People need to review quite how much Clinton closed the gap in Penn and Michigan in the days that followed the election.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
Them activist migrant lawyers have a lot to answer to.
Yes. Some of them do.
Shocking that HMG and Priti seem to be too cowardly to continue highlighting this. Perhaps they're just become addicted to u turns.
Would never catch on. Much better to quickly announce small rural polling stations first before slowly counting large urban centres, preferably over days.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
One reason is that the Courts have judged that it's not safe to return people to the countries they have come from. For many people the limbo is caused by the refusal to grant refugee status for bureaucratic reasons. It's a Kafkaesque nightmare.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
That’s what happens pretty much everywhere else. If you want to appeal, you can do it from abroad and at your own expense.
The U.K. process never seems to be able to produce a ‘final’ decision.
They do but it is not the job of the Courts or Tribunals to implement it. It is the job of the Home Office and they have consistently failed to do so for decades, even under people like May and Patel.
People have an absolute right not to be harassed but the problem is that the system is simply not delivering results. In the last week the Inner House produced this decision refusing an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review in respect of a Chinese person claiming asylum because he is a member of Falun Gong religion and he fears persecution if he is returned to China. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Paragraph 3 of the decision notes: "In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003. He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
I don't think Britainfirst were chapping on doors so they could show solidarity with that unfortunate Chinese person.
No they weren't. They were asking why people who have been determined to be illegal immigrants are still here at our expense. It's a legitimate question notwithstanding their vigilante approach.
The vigilante approach is what condemns them. They should be questioning the powers to be about why this is the case not doorstepping individuals. We wouldn't think it correct for any other type of crime. For example people going knocking on the doors of those convicted of theft to ask them how dare they broke the law.
I completely agree. It's just we would hear a lot less from deeply unpleasant people like that if we didn't give them such obvious targets.
Quite true but I admit I have no idea why they aren't taken straight from court after a failed appeal and put on a plane. Presumably there is some reason for it and would be curious to know what.
One reason is that the Courts have judged that it's not safe to return people to the countries they have come from. For many people the limbo is caused by the refusal to grant refugee status for bureaucratic reasons. It's a Kafkaesque nightmare.
Is not it being unsafe to return a prime case for refugee status? I would have thought that would be the only criteria
There’s a plausible and worrying scenario that plays out in that case:
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede. Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede. Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating. The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.
Comments
And don't get me wrong you may be on the money - but we await the evidence.
I think I would also be right in suspecting that in 2015 a lot of tory votes were purely because he had put a referendum in the manifesto.
Think about that for a second.
https://twitter.com/WatcherMark/status/1298388588812480528
Went in with a couple of blueys.
Do you want a bet? Last time it was 306 to 232 (ignoring faithless electors) so an Electoral College majority of 74.
If you think it will be definitely closer than 2016 then what odds will you give me for £20 to say that the Electoral College will be less close than that?
Some research on the shy Trump argument.
Which is not to say he might not be right on the result - it's going to be a nasty, tumultuous campaign and the Republicans have some advantages that somewhat soften the impact of very good polling for the Dems. But his position would be immovable even if Biden were Obama, JFK, and Oprah rolled into one.
What they've done is to skew it to fool people into thinking it's closer than it is.
For some incomprehensible reason, it has the distances in both miles and kilometers.
In tangentially-related measurement news, the US makes heroic strides towards slightly more saner units by finally abolishing one of its foots.
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska 2nd
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
You can argue demographic change would shift this about a bit, but not to justify adding Texas, Ohio and Iowa. Bit baffled that New Mexico was included, too.
You've not mentioned lawn-mowers yet.
Edit: Or submarines! Submarining to work would be almost as cool as my earlier airships idea.
Is this MacMillan and de Gaulle again?
The questions in that survey essentially prompt respondents to consider misleading responses.
I don't have a high opinion of him though. Notwithstanding that he can be insightful at times.
Take E. Get on a bike. End up in hospital.
Biden 52.3 / Trump 46.8 using RCP
But like America we don't have a national vote. Piling up votes in safe seats and narrowly losing others is crap targeting. Where both the Biden and Trump campaigns have it right is that their base hates the other base. But the soft voters and the middle ground? They can stampede away from Trump and he can still win if they don't do so equally.
Is that agreed?
https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1299365614314717184?s=20
When voters indicate they would be untruthful does this mean:
1. They fall in to the don't knows (a white lie)
2. They fall into the opposing candidates column (a deliberate mistruth)
I presume that polling methodology must be accounting for the majority of this error through leading questions i.e 'who do you think your neighbour is voting for' and known discrepancies from previous elections.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1299342270177726464
I suspect its the latter!!
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csih52.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Paragraph 3 of the decision notes:
"In July 2003 an immigration judge refused the appellant’s appeal against the SSHD’s decision to deny him asylum (“the 2003 decision”). The immigration judge held that the appellant’s evidence was unconvincing; his account of having had difficulties with the police in China was disbelieved. The appellant’s appeal rights were exhausted in July 2003.
He submitted fresh representations in 2011; these were refused in 2014."
So 17 years after he was determined not to have a case he is still here. 17 years. And we are wasting more time and money on essentially rearguing the same points for at least the third time.
I mean, what the hell is going on? What is the point of a system that fails to implement its decisions and leaves a person in this country in limbo for a significant percentage of his entire life?
What these people were doing is wrong but so is a system that so completely fails to implement legally made decisions.
Some interesting data here.
Young people do seem to have the highest rate of struggle but I would argue I "struggle" but I'm still not wishing to get back to the office.
Still, interesting
Let young people go back to their lives.
However one thing that we need to fall in with the Euro mob on is the metric system. I'll hate to see mph go, but go it must.
I gave someone directions the other day, and said it was 200yds up the road - I then realised I really don't judge things in yards, and the recipient of my wisdom was undoubtedly baffled.
- They are probably not exact 100 metres
- Where roads have routed differently from plan or rebuilt (e.g. A1(M) new sections) they've probably been stretched out or contracted rather than renumbered.
- They replaced half furlong (100.56m) markers and may be marked in Kms but still spaced in furlongs/miles.
Britain, eh?
Labour praising the last Labour Government, can't have that!
Best ignored.
The speed limit on the M7 out of Dublin was 120, but I was damned if I could get my rental car to go much over 110.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299246262026469377
Preventing Labour getting at the levers of power since is an achievement the British people can be proud of.
If we start seeing hundreds of cases like this, then it would be incredibly worrying.
And of course there's the question whether vaccines provide a more comprehensive immunity (which is certainly possible).
I'd presumed that the aid was mistargeted, ineffectual, and expensive. (Much like Labour)
My guess (FWIW) is a bit over 200 - and I only have pin money on that.
239 or below
+ £19.27
240-269
-£60.00
270-299
-£60.03
300-329
+£19.27
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1299246840500584448?s=20
The U.K. process never seems to be able to produce a ‘final’ decision.
She tells me that most of the official camps have been closed which has resulted in people rough camping where they can. The approach of the French police is that this is illegal and they will regularly raid them confiscating their tents and sleeping bags, leaving them exposed to the elements with no protection.
Most of the tents and sleeping bags are provided by charities. I am told that these charities used to "tidy up" after festivals where hundreds of people leave their tents in situ because they can't be arsed taking them home. The lack of festivals this year has resulted in a real shortage of tents.
The French police are just oafs and their treatment of immigrants in their country is illegal in many respects in that they are not complying with their international obligations but is it any surprise that the UK is thought to be a haven (and, more emotively, something of a soft touch)?
If these are the choices I vote for being a soft touch but humane and decent but I can't pretend that there are not a lot of people who are going to be annoyed by our failures to act.
Fair to them that gives them sufficient time I would have thought to get an appeal through
CNN "calling" a state may well be wrong.
https://tinyurl.com/y47alfpu
Trump is the clear winner on the night, but Biden doesn’t concede.
Over the next few days, as the counts complete including postall votes, Biden becomes the winner and Trump doesn’t concede.
Trump accuses certain States and Dem governors of making up the numbers/stuffing ballot boxes with postal votes/other cheating.
The whole damn mess ends up in several court cases heading into December, and Bush v Gore starts to look like a little administrative difficulty.