Getting ready for my virus test tomorrow morning; the package arrived in the lunchtime post, the instructions are really clear and everything is cleverly organised. A courier is due to call and collect tomorrow and the result is promised middle of next week by SMS and email.
He forgot to say quote at the start of the sentence like he did with the previous quote "bad thing trump campaign said" end quote sentence he did.
Oh no, what a gigantic fuck up, better just declare Trump president now.
I never said it was a gigantic fuck up. I’m just pointing out that Biden is a massively unimpressive candidate. Who would probably lose against ANYONE - except Trump, who manages to be significantly worse. For the reasons Smithson Jr eloquently lays out below
Just admit you fell for clipping and didn't bother looking for the full video and move on with your life.
Happy to admit that. The point remains: Biden stumbled embarrassingly in a short speech. He’s a doddery old twit. But he is the only way to avoid Trump 2.0. What a choice.
Let's be clear. I think Biden is an appalling candidate. Just the fucking pits.
But Trump is also a terrible candidate, and I mean terrible as in a bad candidate not as a person. Trump is making fuck up after fuck up that dwarfs Biden.
Well then we are entirely in agreement. Which is nice.
The only reason Trump has a chance is because of BLM/law and order. Everything else is toxic for him. If America was politically calm, Biden would win by 20 points. He still might.
But you can sense the twitchiness of suburban America. This radical urban violence is damaging the Dems
Trump polls terribly on BLM and Law and Order. Biden has a 10-20 point lead on stopping violence and keeping America safe.
Oh come on. What other reason is there for Trump to regain momentum, as he has?
It's remarkable how little movement there is in the polls. Biden has been at 50.1% +/- 0.9% for six months. While Trump dropped from 47% in the polls, to 42%, and is now back to around 43%.
Is it remarkable? Surely everyone has a view on Trump by now. What would he have to do to change someones mind?
Yes - how one can still be a floater I do not know.
There will be a few who dislike Trump but think the economy is better with a Republican president. If economy=stock market they might be right.
I think thats the biggest pool of floating voters, those weighing up their wallet vs a return to more civility.
There will also be Republican voters who may not like Trump himself, but do consider things like Supreme Court appointments.
IMO a lot depends on the economy between now and the election. If things look like getting back to normal after all the disruption, this will help the incumbent. Until this virus hit, the economy was going gangbusters, and the stock market is still going crazy.
A sceptic would suggest that Softbank is borderline insolvent, and needs to goose the NASDAQ to make its Vision Fund look less of a complete and utter shit show.
It also demonstrates how illiquid some of these markets are that a single (albeit large) player can move prices so much.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
Pretty much, yes - thank goodness. And long may it continue.
I don't know anyone who has had the thing, or at any rate had either a positive test or any form of symptomatic infection. A friend of mine has a cousin in Cardiff who was very ill with it indeed, but that's about it.
In no way am I belittling the impact of the virus but wondered if part of the reaction to it is that it is still remote and happening to someone else.
I can't speak for the situation in America, but I think that the threat in this country feels very real for a great many people, especially those who are older, medically vulnerable or worried well, regardless of whether the disease has been exacting a serious toll in their area or not.
I've been having a look at the ONS map of certified Covid deaths, and it is remarkable how lightly the vast majority of counting areas in market town and rural England and Wales have escaped from this pandemic. Death totals under five are routine; some of them have had no fatalities at all.
Despite this, however, I would strongly suspect that people in the more vulnerable and anxious parts of the population in little villages up in the Yorkshire Dales have been just as frightened as those living in Haringey.
I live my life looking for the As close to no risk option as I can when I go out, but I am amazed at the number of people, regardless of age seem to think this is all someone else’s problem. I was interested to see if proximity to the virus and it’s effects modified attitudes and behavior. Living in Spain can be like burying your head in the sand if you don’t plug into local news outlets and the levels of ignorance about the current situation is flabbergasting.
I know that 100% of the population in the UK is not going to take this thing seriously, and 100% of them aren't going to follow the rules. That much is inevitable. But I do have this pet theory that our Government's messaging at the height of the pandemic may have been more effective and far reaching than in other jurisdictions - not only by scaring the crap out of people, but also by tying compliance to the rules to respect for the NHS as national religion.
In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I still maintain my suspicion that a combination of high levels of public caution (especially amongst the more vulnerable cohorts,) and uncommonly high levels of adoption of both WFH and online retail, is the most likely reason why the UK shows little indication of going the same way as France and Spain.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Italy is doing much better. As is Germany.
Something has gone badly wrong in Spain and France.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
The key here is population growth. Tx, Az and Fla all have fast rising populations. Some dizzying making for political drift. In Arizona and Texas it is young professionals concentrated in urban areas. Perfect for Dems. In Florida it is much more spread out in rural counties, amongst the newly retired. GOP strong.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
My personal knowledge of COVID is as follows:
A old drinking friend of my father in law died after catching it in hospital in London. Three people in my wife's manufacturing works have had mild cases, at different times, though none were direct contacts.of my wife at the relevant times. The one team mate of mine who is struggling with the sort of long term health problems typical of COVID was actually afflicted by flu late last year.
One of the drivers for my usual cab company died, as did my father.
RIP
But your father did not have Covid, did he?
He caught it in the hospital having gone in for something else
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
My personal knowledge of COVID is as follows:
A old drinking friend of my father in law died after catching it in hospital in London. Three people in my wife's manufacturing works have had mild cases, at different times, though none were direct contacts.of my wife at the relevant times. The one team mate of mine who is struggling with the sort of long term health problems typical of COVID was actually afflicted by flu late last year.
One of the drivers for my usual cab company died, as did my father.
RIP
But your father did not have Covid, did he?
He caught it in the hospital having gone in for something else
Ah. I didn’t know that. My sympathies.
That’s the same story as my friend in the coma right now. Went into hospital for something else, but caught the wretched virus there.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Italy is doing much better. As is Germany.
Something has gone badly wrong in Spain and France.
Too much hugging and kissing? Odd.
Perhaps in France it's the anti-vax, anti-government tendency? Spain seems to have reopened for tourism too lightly.
Italy got the biggest psychological shock being the first Western country to be hit so it's not surprising they learned the lessons.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
My brother first tested positive on March 31st and finally tested negative in mid August.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Italy is doing much better. As is Germany.
Something has gone badly wrong in Spain and France.
Too much hugging and kissing? Odd.
Perhaps in France it's the anti-vax, anti-government tendency? Spain seems to have reopened for tourism too lightly.
Italy got the biggest psychological shock being the first Western country to be hit so it's not surprising they learned the lessons.
Yes. Black Rook also makes a good point. The UK is WFH much more than France, say. Central Paris is not a ghost town like central London.
That may be crocking our economy but it may also be saving us from a huge 2nd surge. SO FAR
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
In 2017 the Tories won 55 seats more than Labour, in 2016 Trump won 77 more EC votes than Hillary, that is more than just a whisker.
Biden is 78 this year and the Dems nominee, Nixon who Trump resembles also won again after defeat in 1960.
If Trump loses and does not run the 2024 GOP nominee will likely be Pence or Cruz, there is not going to be any swing back to a moderate Republican nominee after McCain in 2008 and Romney 2012 were the nominees and lost for the foreseeable future.
Starmer only came after 3 elections where the leftwing Labour candidate won the leadership after Ed Miliband beat David Miliband, Corbyn beat Burnham and Cooper and then Owen Smith.
Yes both elections were decided by a whisker. It doesn't matter how many more seats the Tories won than Labour since the SNP etc would have backed Labour. If the SNP had held onto all the seats they lost to the Tories then Corbyn could have been PM.
And the EC was decided by razor thin margins too. The all or nothing nature means major changes can happen with very few vote changes. Just a tiny swing in the Midwest and Hillary would have won.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Apropos of nothing I just want to emphasise what an absolute bell end Robby Mook is and what a disaster it is for the Dems he is in charge of their Congressional campaign.
'Mook: An incompetent or stupid person; a contemptible person (esp. with reference to low social status)' - OED.
Could they really not find anyone better than this utter inadequate? He makes Nick Timothy look like a strategic genius.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Ban folk returning from southern Europe?
I can report that in remote Greece they are taking it very seriously. Go to the tiniest taverna in the titchiest village in the hills - the barman will wear a mask. Lots of hand san.
It’s quietly impressive.
Indeed it’s quite likely they are taking it less seriously in the more ‘sophisticated’ parts of Greece. Rich tourist islands and so on.
Am greatly enjoying Anoushka Shankar on the Proms. Sadly she hasn't played Jumpin Jack Flash yet. Or brought on the Dalai Lama to reprise their recent collaboration. Or even got him to cover JJF. But here's hoping.
I'm reminded about just how ludicrously open North Carolina's election data is. Tomorrow when the file is updated it will be possible to find out exactly who in North Carolina has voted.
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Italy is doing much better. As is Germany.
Something has gone badly wrong in Spain and France.
Too much hugging and kissing? Odd.
Perhaps in France it's the anti-vax, anti-government tendency? Spain seems to have reopened for tourism too lightly.
Italy got the biggest psychological shock being the first Western country to be hit so it's not surprising they learned the lessons.
They lack the Testing and Tracing that the UK has too. The UK's Test and Trace program is really coming into its fore now at keeping this virus under control in this country and we are running far more tests than they are - at a fraction of the positivity rate.
If you don't test enough, you don't know who has it and they can spread it. Its where we struggled months ago, its quite remarkable that France and Spain especially having also been hit didn't learn that lesson.
I see someone still has confidence in central London. MSD is planning to build a £1bn research hub opposite King's Cross station.
They’ve been the the area for a while.
But the Crick is a serious draw
Why on earth to we need to build new research institutions in central London?
Because there is a fantastic network effect with the Crick, Wellcome Trust, UCL and LSTHM all within a few hundred yards of each other. Top scientists want to work there and MSD is choosing to invest shareholders money in accessing top talent
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Ban folk returning from southern Europe?
I can report that in remote Greece they are taking it very seriously. Go to the tiniest taverna in the titchiest village in the hills - the barman will wear a mask. Lots of hand san.
It’s quietly impressive.
Indeed it’s quite likely they are taking it less seriously in the more ‘sophisticated’ parts of Greece. Rich tourist islands and so on.
Yes. My Dad is on Alonnisos at the moment and reports the same.
I see someone still has confidence in central London. MSD is planning to build a £1bn research hub opposite King's Cross station.
They’ve been the the area for a while.
But the Crick is a serious draw
Why on earth to we need to build new research institutions in central London?
Because there is a fantastic network effect with the Crick, Wellcome Trust, UCL and LSTHM all within a few hundred yards of each other. Top scientists want to work there and MSD is choosing to invest shareholders money in accessing top talent
That’s really fucking bad. Totally out of control.
What do you suggest they do? The pattern of evolution is looking quite consistent across Southern Europe, thank goodness the summer is over now just the return to school to deal with.
Ban folk returning from southern Europe?
I can report that in remote Greece they are taking it very seriously. Go to the tiniest taverna in the titchiest village in the hills - the barman will wear a mask. Lots of hand san.
It’s quietly impressive.
Indeed it’s quite likely they are taking it less seriously in the more ‘sophisticated’ parts of Greece. Rich tourist islands and so on.
Yes. My Dad is on Alonnisos at the moment and reports the same.
There’s a lot more usage of visors out here as well. I remember 3-4 months ago seeing the first and being amused, shocked and alarmed. Mostly amused. They looked so surreal
Now they seem quite normal. Some Greeks wear them upside down to cover more of the mouth and nose.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
My brother first tested positive on March 31st and finally tested negative in mid August.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
This also flags that a chunk of the ‘new cases’ being reported now are expanded testing programmes uncovering people still testing positive who caught the virus way back.
Am greatly enjoying Anoushka Shankar on the Proms. Sadly she hasn't played Jumpin Jack Flash yet. Or brought on the Dalai Lama to reprise their recent collaboration. Or even got him to cover JJF. But here's hoping.
Yes, reckon with an audience that would have been one of those proms to remember.
He forgot to say quote at the start of the sentence like he did with the previous quote "bad thing trump campaign said" end quote sentence he did.
Oh no, what a gigantic fuck up, better just declare Trump president now.
I never said it was a gigantic fuck up. I’m just pointing out that Biden is a massively unimpressive candidate. Who would probably lose against ANYONE - except Trump, who manages to be significantly worse. For the reasons Smithson Jr eloquently lays out below
Just admit you fell for clipping and didn't bother looking for the full video and move on with your life.
Happy to admit that. The point remains: Biden stumbled embarrassingly in a short speech. He’s a doddery old twit. But he is the only way to avoid Trump 2.0. What a choice.
Let's be clear. I think Biden is an appalling candidate. Just the fucking pits.
But Trump is also a terrible candidate, and I mean terrible as in a bad candidate not as a person. Trump is making fuck up after fuck up that dwarfs Biden.
Well then we are entirely in agreement. Which is nice.
The only reason Trump has a chance is because of BLM/law and order. Everything else is toxic for him. If America was politically calm, Biden would win by 20 points. He still might.
But you can sense the twitchiness of suburban America. This radical urban violence is damaging the Dems
Trump polls terribly on BLM and Law and Order. Biden has a 10-20 point lead on stopping violence and keeping America safe.
Oh come on. What other reason is there for Trump to regain momentum, as he has?
It's remarkable how little movement there is in the polls. Biden has been at 50.1% +/- 0.9% for six months. While Trump dropped from 47% in the polls, to 42%, and is now back to around 43%.
Is it remarkable? Surely everyone has a view on Trump by now. What would he have to do to change someones mind?
Yes - how one can still be a floater I do not know.
There will be a few who dislike Trump but think the economy is better with a Republican president. If economy=stock market they might be right.
I think thats the biggest pool of floating voters, those weighing up their wallet vs a return to more civility.
There will also be Republican voters who may not like Trump himself, but do consider things like Supreme Court appointments.
IMO a lot depends on the economy between now and the election. If things look like getting back to normal after all the disruption, this will help the incumbent. Until this virus hit, the economy was going gangbusters, and the stock market is still going crazy.
Going gangbusters due to the complete abandonment of fiscal and monetary prudence.
Am greatly enjoying Anoushka Shankar on the Proms. Sadly she hasn't played Jumpin Jack Flash yet. Or brought on the Dalai Lama to reprise their recent collaboration. Or even got him to cover JJF. But here's hoping.
Yes, reckon with an audience that would have been one of those proms to remember.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
My brother first tested positive on March 31st and finally tested negative in mid August.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
This also flags that a chunk of the ‘new cases’ being reported now are expanded testing programmes uncovering people still testing positive who caught the virus way back.
I was reading about this the other day. Some of these could be "long Covid" cases, but there was also the suggestion that PCR testing could be flagging a lot of false positives in people who have successfully fought off infection, but are still shedding dead fragments of viral RNA which the tests are then amplifying and detecting.
If that's the case then the numbers of people who have active cases of the disease may be substantially less than 100% of the total of those testing positive.
He forgot to say quote at the start of the sentence like he did with the previous quote "bad thing trump campaign said" end quote sentence he did.
Oh no, what a gigantic fuck up, better just declare Trump president now.
I never said it was a gigantic fuck up. I’m just pointing out that Biden is a massively unimpressive candidate. Who would probably lose against ANYONE - except Trump, who manages to be significantly worse. For the reasons Smithson Jr eloquently lays out below
Just admit you fell for clipping and didn't bother looking for the full video and move on with your life.
Happy to admit that. The point remains: Biden stumbled embarrassingly in a short speech. He’s a doddery old twit. But he is the only way to avoid Trump 2.0. What a choice.
Let's be clear. I think Biden is an appalling candidate. Just the fucking pits.
But Trump is also a terrible candidate, and I mean terrible as in a bad candidate not as a person. Trump is making fuck up after fuck up that dwarfs Biden.
Well then we are entirely in agreement. Which is nice.
The only reason Trump has a chance is because of BLM/law and order. Everything else is toxic for him. If America was politically calm, Biden would win by 20 points. He still might.
But you can sense the twitchiness of suburban America. This radical urban violence is damaging the Dems
Trump polls terribly on BLM and Law and Order. Biden has a 10-20 point lead on stopping violence and keeping America safe.
Trumps best chance is to focus on the economy, especially the stock market, and putting as much pressure as he can on getting a vaccine approved by polling day.
Yes, it is vital to remember that Trump polls brilliantly on the economy. There are undoubtedly currently people saying they will vote for Biden despite thinking Trump is better for the economy.
That is why the violence on the streets is terrible for Trump. It takes focus away from the economy where he is strong.
Am greatly enjoying Anoushka Shankar on the Proms. Sadly she hasn't played Jumpin Jack Flash yet. Or brought on the Dalai Lama to reprise their recent collaboration. Or even got him to cover JJF. But here's hoping.
Yes, reckon with an audience that would have been one of those proms to remember.
Best of luck with the test by the way.
Thank you kindly. But I am sure it will be negative; I thought a negative test result might come in handy for my European trip starting Monday. As a participant in Prof Spectre’s reporting App I get priority for a test and it will be a useful addition to the virus declaration forms I have downloaded today for France and Italy.
Having criticised pretty much all aspects of the government’s response, I can’t fault the postal testing pack, with brilliantly clear instructions and an easy to manage kit. I booked the courier to collect tomorrow at 3.30pm this afternoon, which is also impressive. Assuming everything runs smoothly.
The key here is population growth. Tx, Az and Fla all have fast rising populations. Some dizzying making for political drift. In Arizona and Texas it is young professionals concentrated in urban areas. Perfect for Dems. In Florida it is much more spread out in rural counties, amongst the newly retired. GOP strong.
Yes. Biden wins Texas but not Florida is in my musing.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
The key here is population growth. Tx, Az and Fla all have fast rising populations. Some dizzying making for political drift. In Arizona and Texas it is young professionals concentrated in urban areas. Perfect for Dems. In Florida it is much more spread out in rural counties, amongst the newly retired. GOP strong.
Yes. Biden wins Texas but not Florida is in my musing.
California is expected to lose 1 EC vote after the 2020 census, with Texas picking up 3 more, Florida 2 more, and Arizona 1 more.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
My brother first tested positive on March 31st and finally tested negative in mid August.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
This also flags that a chunk of the ‘new cases’ being reported now are expanded testing programmes uncovering people still testing positive who caught the virus way back.
I was reading about this the other day. Some of these could be "long Covid" cases, but there was also the suggestion that PCR testing could be flagging a lot of false positives in people who have successfully fought off infection, but are still shedding dead fragments of viral RNA which the tests are then amplifying and detecting.
If that's the case then the numbers of people who have active cases of the disease may be substantially less than 100% of the total of those testing positive.
Indeed. It is surely part of the explanation of why hospital ICUs and morgues remain pretty empty despite the case numbers that have been rising for over a month now in many countries.
Another interesting theory I read somewhere is that even the people catching the virus now are practicing some behaviour modification, and hence tend to catch smaller doses of the virus compared to those infected in the first wave, leading to much less serious symptoms.
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Texas is getting the brunt of COVID19 at the minute. Must be pretty hard to buy into Trump's insanity if you know someone sick or dying and he's still making a game about it and laughing about masks.
How personal is the pandemic though, as I said yesterday I know of no one who has had it or know anyone who knows someone who’s had it. This despite living in one of the worst affected European countries, what is the UK experience like? Is it all happening to someone else not in your universe?
I know a couple of people who died of it, and another who was seriously ill. Several more who have had it mildly. None caught it occupationally.
My brother first tested positive on March 31st and finally tested negative in mid August.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
This also flags that a chunk of the ‘new cases’ being reported now are expanded testing programmes uncovering people still testing positive who caught the virus way back.
I was reading about this the other day. Some of these could be "long Covid" cases, but there was also the suggestion that PCR testing could be flagging a lot of false positives in people who have successfully fought off infection, but are still shedding dead fragments of viral RNA which the tests are then amplifying and detecting.
If that's the case then the numbers of people who have active cases of the disease may be substantially less than 100% of the total of those testing positive.
Indeed. It is surely part of the explanation of why hospital ICUs and morgues remain pretty empty despite the case numbers that have been rising for over a month now in many countries.
Another interesting theory I read somewhere is that even the people catching the virus now are practicing some behaviour modification, and hence tend to catch smaller doses of the virus compared to those infected in the first wave, leading to much less serious symptoms.
Yes. I have wondered about that. People aren't coming close enough for long enough to get a huge dose.
The key here is population growth. Tx, Az and Fla all have fast rising populations. Some dizzying making for political drift. In Arizona and Texas it is young professionals concentrated in urban areas. Perfect for Dems. In Florida it is much more spread out in rural counties, amongst the newly retired. GOP strong.
I think there has been a fair number of Puerto Ricans moving to Florida following the Hurricaine. Not Trump fans in the main.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
The knickers in a twist is over the two physicist who built the model and gave an interview saying epidemiology is child's play and completely trivial and they needed to go back to doing something intellectually stimulating and their model was totally fucking wrong
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
For starters not everybody lives in a "home town," and even if they do they mostly find parties a lot thicker on the ground at university than at home.
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
For starters not everybody lives in a "home town," and even if they do they mostly find parties a lot thicker on the ground at university than at home.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
He went betfair favourite for PM at one point on election night. At about 2 am if I remember correctly.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
That's true. PM, yes. Implementation of manifesto, no.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
I never said that though, I said "winning".
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
I never said that though, I said "winning".
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
Do you think Farron or Sturgeon would have found Corbyn acceptable as PM, or indeed Corbyn find them acceptable as coalition partners?
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
For starters not everybody lives in a "home town," and even if they do they mostly find parties a lot thicker on the ground at university than at home.
Where do they live?
Cities, villages, the countryside, all sorts of places where it is 100x less easy to find like minded party people than it is at a university.
If these students weren't “at university” they would still be going to parties. Just in their home towns. I’m not sure why everyone’s getting their knickers in a twist over it.
For starters not everybody lives in a "home town," and even if they do they mostly find parties a lot thicker on the ground at university than at home.
The other issue of course is America's absurd law that you can't drink until 21 which means that of course every college student does drink but does so at a party at home.
The UK has seen time and again that social distancing is being better observed in pubs that have put safety measures in than at homes. UK students can go to a pub, US students can't.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
For better or worse SLab pretty much put paid to the SNP contributing to those ten more seats.
'Ms Dugdale told voters in the Borders, Highlands and other parts of Scotland that voting Tory was a better way to stop the Scottish National Party than voting for her own party’s candidates.'
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
I never said that though, I said "winning".
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
Do you think Farron or Sturgeon would have found Corbyn acceptable as PM, or indeed Corbyn find them acceptable as coalition partners?
Completely delusional.
To get rid of PM May? Yes absolutely.
Not only that but they would have been incredibly powerful and able to write their own price for supporting Corbyn - and Corbyn may have been prepared to pay those prices.
Sturgeon would definitely have supported Corbyn, but would have also demanded an independence referendum most likely. Corbyn didn't care if the UK broke up and would agree to that if it made he became PM.
As for Farron - he was to the left of the Lib Dems anyway, but what issues did the Lib Dems care for? The EU and electoral reform. Farron could have demanded something like this for his support.
Would they have gone in like Clegg did in 2010? No of course not. But DUP style confidence and supply, with heavy prices extracted is entirely plausible.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
I never said that though, I said "winning".
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
Do you think Farron or Sturgeon would have found Corbyn acceptable as PM, or indeed Corbyn find them acceptable as coalition partners?
Completely delusional.
To get rid of PM May? Yes absolutely.
Not only that but they would have been incredibly powerful and able to write their own price for supporting Corbyn - and Corbyn may have been prepared to pay those prices.
Sturgeon would definitely have supported Corbyn, but would have also demanded an independence referendum most likely. Corbyn didn't care if the UK broke up and would agree to that if it made he became PM.
As for Farron - he was to the left of the Lib Dems anyway, but what issues did the Lib Dems care for? The EU and electoral reform. Farron could have demanded something like this for his support.
Would they have gone in like Clegg did in 2010? No of course not. But DUP style confidence and supply, with heavy prices extracted is entirely plausible.
No it isn't. Neither May nor Corbyn would have been PM. After a couple of weeks discussions, there would have been no agreement and a further GE.
The best thing for America is a Biden blowout that sees him sweep Texas, Florida, Arizona and leaves Trump under 200 EC votes. That way the courts won't need to settle this and hopefully the sane Republicans left in the party can take back over from the nutters who currently run it. lt Just as before the last election I said the best thing would be a major Tory landslide, not just because I wanted the Tories to win but because it would release the grasp Corbyn had on the party. Look at Labour nine months later and Corbyn is history and there is very clear "new management". A narrow Corbyn defeat may have left RLB or Laura Pidcock to pick up the baton on a "one more heave" basis, but the hammering made that impossible.
Corbyn never won though unlike Trump in 2016.
If Trump loses he can also constitutionally run again in 2024 and who would bet against him failing to win the nomination unless he is absolutely trounced in November. In 1888 President Cleveland lost his re election battle but ran again in 1892 and won to complete a second term.
Corbyn came within a whisker of winning in 2017 and Trump only won by a whisker in 2016. Both results could have very easily gone the other way, if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary.
In the popular vote the Tories lead over Labour in 2017 was almost identical to Hillary's lead over Trump in 2016 too.
If he loses this time then I'd happily bet against him not getting the nomination next time. Not only would he be 78 but he's got terrible approval ratings and Americans in general do not like retreads. This is not the 19th Century either.
No Corbyn did not come within a whisker in 2017. Labour won 262 seats and 326 are needed for a majority, so he was 64 seats short of even a nominal majority.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Corbyn was a long way from winning outright, but he was very close indeed to power.
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
A nominal Premiership, but not only an extremely unstable coalition that would have required extreme political nous to negotiate with other parties, but also one without the backing of much of his own parliamentary party.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
I never said that though, I said "winning".
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
Do you think Farron or Sturgeon would have found Corbyn acceptable as PM, or indeed Corbyn find them acceptable as coalition partners?
Completely delusional.
To get rid of PM May? Yes absolutely.
Not only that but they would have been incredibly powerful and able to write their own price for supporting Corbyn - and Corbyn may have been prepared to pay those prices.
Sturgeon would definitely have supported Corbyn, but would have also demanded an independence referendum most likely. Corbyn didn't care if the UK broke up and would agree to that if it made he became PM.
As for Farron - he was to the left of the Lib Dems anyway, but what issues did the Lib Dems care for? The EU and electoral reform. Farron could have demanded something like this for his support.
Would they have gone in like Clegg did in 2010? No of course not. But DUP style confidence and supply, with heavy prices extracted is entirely plausible.
No it isn't. Neither May nor Corbyn would have been PM. After a couple of weeks discussions, there would have been no agreement and a further GE.
Who would have blocked agreement?
The SNP? With a chance to have a weakened government desperate for their votes and willing to give a second independence referendum?
Or the Lib Dems? With a chance to have a weakened government desperate for their votes and willing to give a second EU/Electoral Reform referendum?
Both of those parties would have struck the electoral jackpot, as the DUP had until they overplayed their hand..
Comments
It also demonstrates how illiquid some of these markets are that a single (albeit large) player can move prices so much.
In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, I still maintain my suspicion that a combination of high levels of public caution (especially amongst the more vulnerable cohorts,) and uncommonly high levels of adoption of both WFH and online retail, is the most likely reason why the UK shows little indication of going the same way as France and Spain.
Something has gone badly wrong in Spain and France.
Too much hugging and kissing? Odd.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1301953801528709120
In Arizona and Texas it is young professionals concentrated in urban areas. Perfect for Dems.
In Florida it is much more spread out in rural counties, amongst the newly retired. GOP strong.
That’s the same story as my friend in the coma right now. Went into hospital for something else, but caught the wretched virus there.
Italy got the biggest psychological shock being the first Western country to be hit so it's not surprising they learned the lessons.
"Do you suspect this Tweeter of not using a device for its intended purpose? Tip us off here."
Well, I guess it's a view.
His symptoms were fortunately mild but it has apparently further weakened his immune system which had already been compromised by chemotherapy.
That may be crocking our economy but it may also be saving us from a huge 2nd surge. SO FAR
And the EC was decided by razor thin margins too. The all or nothing nature means major changes can happen with very few vote changes. Just a tiny swing in the Midwest and Hillary would have won.
Could they really not find anyone better than this utter inadequate? He makes Nick Timothy look like a strategic genius.
Hmmm, wonder why they felt the need to put that up there?
I can report that in remote Greece they are taking it very seriously. Go to the tiniest taverna in the titchiest village in the hills - the barman will wear a mask. Lots of hand san.
It’s quietly impressive.
Indeed it’s quite likely they are taking it less seriously in the more ‘sophisticated’ parts of Greece. Rich tourist islands and so on.
Sadly she hasn't played Jumpin Jack Flash yet.
Or brought on the Dalai Lama to reprise their recent collaboration.
Or even got him to cover JJF.
But here's hoping.
If you don't test enough, you don't know who has it and they can spread it. Its where we struggled months ago, its quite remarkable that France and Spain especially having also been hit didn't learn that lesson.
Now they seem quite normal. Some Greeks wear them upside down to cover more of the mouth and nose.
If that's the case then the numbers of people who have active cases of the disease may be substantially less than 100% of the total of those testing positive.
That is why the violence on the streets is terrible for Trump. It takes focus away from the economy where he is strong.
Having criticised pretty much all aspects of the government’s response, I can’t fault the postal testing pack, with brilliantly clear instructions and an easy to manage kit. I booked the courier to collect tomorrow at 3.30pm this afternoon, which is also impressive. Assuming everything runs smoothly.
To say he was close is as delusional for a Tory as for a Trotskyite. An unstable Rainbow coalition might have been close, but that would assume that SNP, LibDems, PC and DUP would all back Corbyns manifesto, and that is obvious nonsense.
Another interesting theory I read somewhere is that even the people catching the virus now are practicing some behaviour modification, and hence tend to catch smaller doses of the virus compared to those infected in the first wave, leading to much less serious symptoms.
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1301984310791204869
Forget the Lib Dems: Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 302 in 2017. Allowing for the absence of Sinn Fein, if Labour and the SNP had relieved the Tories of ten more seats between them, Corbyn would've been in Downing Street and that's virtually certain. Plaid and the Greens both run to the left of Labour and the SNP would sell their own grannies to the glue factory if it meant getting a second referendum.
But no doubt he did say it.
The idea that we were just a few thousand votes and 10 seats away from Socialism red in tooth and claw is as delusional from the Tories as it is from the Trots.
In that instance I would indeed define Corbyn becoming Prime Minister as "winning". Indeed I followed up that sentence with the line "... if the Tories hadn't gained so many Scottish seats or if Hillary hadn't ignored the warnings about the Midwest and campaigned there then PM Corbyn could have been meeting President Hillary."
I never said "socialism red in tooth and claw", that is your words not mine, I said "PM Corbyn".
If the SNP had held on to all their seats that they lost to the Tories then Lab+SNP+PC+Green would have been 313 and Con+DUP would have been 316 with Farron's LD 12 as kingmakers.
Completely delusional.
I turned the cricket off, assuming we were done for.
The UK has seen time and again that social distancing is being better observed in pubs that have put safety measures in than at homes. UK students can go to a pub, US students can't.
'Ms Dugdale told voters in the Borders, Highlands and other parts of Scotland that voting Tory was a better way to stop the Scottish National Party than voting for her own party’s candidates.'
Not only that but they would have been incredibly powerful and able to write their own price for supporting Corbyn - and Corbyn may have been prepared to pay those prices.
Sturgeon would definitely have supported Corbyn, but would have also demanded an independence referendum most likely. Corbyn didn't care if the UK broke up and would agree to that if it made he became PM.
As for Farron - he was to the left of the Lib Dems anyway, but what issues did the Lib Dems care for? The EU and electoral reform. Farron could have demanded something like this for his support.
Would they have gone in like Clegg did in 2010? No of course not. But DUP style confidence and supply, with heavy prices extracted is entirely plausible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nULFMp4jKBo
https://twitter.com/mollyjongfast/status/1301930689084952577?s=21
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/515199-parents-of-slain-soldiers-blast-trumps-reported-loser-comments-in-new-ad
https://twitter.com/unitecountrypac/status/1301951503515750403?s=21
It makes me angry just watching that video.
The SNP? With a chance to have a weakened government desperate for their votes and willing to give a second independence referendum?
Or the Lib Dems? With a chance to have a weakened government desperate for their votes and willing to give a second EU/Electoral Reform referendum?
Both of those parties would have struck the electoral jackpot, as the DUP had until they overplayed their hand..