Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ruthless: RBG’s death has given Trump a Black Swan to exploit – politicalbetting.com

12346

Comments

  • eekeek Posts: 28,774

    ... and we're back to

    Electric cars become cheaper than ICE vehicles

    The model 'S' is too big, model 3 is about BMW 3 series size. The Polestar2 looks good, but yes the price needs to come down - hopefully Elon will say something about it next Tuesday.
    Given that the cost of most EVs in the batteries how exactly do you get the cost down without reducing range significantly?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,369
    ydoethur said:

    Boris Johnson hasn’t yet been accused of flogging peerages.

    Which is quite amazing when you like at some of the rubbish he’s ennobled.
    It mattered in the days of David Lloyd-George, it mattered in the days of Tony Blair. No one really cares anymore, Boris will be Boris!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited September 2020
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 43,178
    Nigelb said:

    If the Republicans do try to seat a Trump nominee, it might be a political game changer, though. It will take the brakes off what an incoming Democratic administration might consider in terms of constitutional radicalism.

    They are simply not going to accept a decades long conservative domination of the Supreme Court put in place by the lame duck representatives of a minority of the electorate.
    No, exactly. They'll come in and change the court itself. The Republicans should take that into account if they have any sense.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    edited September 2020

    What happens if the elections needs a Supreme Court Ruling and there only 6 members and it ends up tied.....

    If say the current court is deadlocked at 4-4 because the Chief Justice in recent times has sided on some big issues with the liberal wing then the original lower court ruling stands . What then happens is the case is reheard at a later date with the full compliment of 9 judges .
  • What happens if the elections needs a Supreme Court Ruling and there only 6 members and it ends up tied.....

    In the event of a tie in the Supreme Court, the request before it is denied. That is, the ruling of the lower court stands.

    So if Trump was appealing a lower court judgment for Biden, Biden would win. If Biden was appealing a lower court judgment for Trump, Trump would win.
  • SpoonSpoon Posts: 2
    edited September 2020


    Yes, that's why the current Supreme Court has shied away from banning abortion, to the disappointment of evangelicals, because it doesn't want to impose a decision so monumental that the backlash might imperil its own existence.

    My own view on abortion is probably odd, because I accept two of the major points from both sides of the debate: (1) Abortion is obviously murder - what else would you call the premeditated taking of a viable human life?; (2) Notwithstanding that, a woman has the right to an abortion whenever she pleases - right up to the moment of birth, if necessary - because human beings have an absolute right to control what happens to our own bodies, which are the one inalienable piece of property that all people are born with, and infringing that right makes all the others fairly meaningless. It's an ugly business, but infinitely preferable to the alternative.
    The counterargument to 2) is that for adults all rights come with responsibilities, and in almost all cases the woman's exercise of a right was a necessary part of how she became pregnant. We don't have an absolute right to control our bodies. If I'm flying a passenger plane I don't have a right to use my body to crash it. I've got a responsibility to use my body not to. But I think the law is fine pretty much where it is now.

    The SC vacancy probably won't have much effect on voting choices or on likelihood to vote - at least not in the presidential. It might have an effect downticket for a few GOP senators. But this is assuming Trump is sensible and doesn't try to polarise too much by nominating say Tom Cotton. If I were on Biden's team I would love Trump to pick Cotton. Trump can have too much limelight. That wasn't true in 2016 but it is now.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    eek said:

    Given that the cost of most EVs in the batteries how exactly do you get the cost down without reducing range significantly?
    Cheaper, higher capacity batteries.
    That will happen soon.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 43,178
    HYUFD said:

    It was high evangelical turnout for George W Bush that was pivotal for re electing him over Kerry in 2004, evangelicals did not turn out in 2018 to the extent they did in 2016 or 2004
    Well there was supposedly a "Kavanaugh effect" - it got the juices flowing on both sides, just like now. No, I think Biden has this unless he blows it. And he's a seasoned old pro who is unlikely to do that.
  • Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell vowed to put President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee to a vote within hours of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death being announced, sparking outrage among Democrats.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54216710
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 43,178
    nico679 said:

    Trump managed 46% and got very lucky to win in 2016 and was with the SC judge opening at that time so talk of this event suddenly seeing him coasting to victory is misguided and this is likely to repeat the increased turnout of the Dems in the 2018 mid terms .

    The Dems were far too soft in 2016 , they thought Clinton would beat Trump so they’d get their nominee . This is different altogether , the anger is through the roof and nuclear tactics are Iikely to be used this time .

    Indeed. No complacency this time. And if the SC gets rigged before the election the Dems will unrig it after they get in.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,518
    James Rodriguez is some signing.
    As is Allen.
  • eek said:

    Given that the cost of most EVs in the batteries how exactly do you get the cost down without reducing range significantly?
    Next Tuesday is 'Battery Day' at Tesla.
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-battery-day-and-the-future-of-electric-batteries-51600386083
    Even if he doesn't pull a rabbit out of the hat "Battery costs are falling. Some industry insiders tell Barron’s costs are down 75% over the past 10 years. The cost bogey today is for battery cells to hit $100 per kilowatt hour.."


  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rkrkrk said:

    Sad news to wake up to.

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    The Dem reaction will be dramatic. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an expansion of Supreme Court in future years.

    Of course neither adding two reliably blue states to the senate, nor adding two seats to the Court (to be appointed by a democrats president) count as “gerrymandering” of course
  • dixiedean said:

    James Rodriguez is some signing.
    As is Allen.

    Do you think they convinced him to talk to Everton by doing the old Oxford Brookes uni move, a university in Oxford....a club in Liverpool in interested in signing you.
  • Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell vowed to put President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee to a vote within hours of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death being announced, sparking outrage among Democrats.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54216710

    https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1307153104941518848
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912

    In the event of a tie in the Supreme Court, the request before it is denied. That is, the ruling of the lower court stands.

    So if Trump was appealing a lower court judgment for Biden, Biden would win. If Biden was appealing a lower court judgment for Trump, Trump would win.
    This is an interesting/disturbing corollary of that:

    https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1307194955459375109
  • Charles said:

    Of course neither adding two reliably blue states to the senate, nor adding two seats to the Court (to be appointed by a democrats president) count as “gerrymandering” of course
    'Levelling the playing field' ?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,783
    I don’t wish to appear rude. But it’s quite something to be sufficiently high functioning that you can be elected as an MP and yet gleefully admit that you are so incurious and inept that you’ve never made even a simple meal from scratch.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    Another Senator comes to terms with publicly expressing his hypocrisy.

    https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1307294311667597312
  • Nigelb said:

    Another Senator comes to terms with publicly expressing his hypocrisy.

    twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1307294311667597312

    Politicians are hypocrites and flip flop on their policy stances, who knew.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    Charles said:

    Of course neither adding two reliably blue states to the senate, nor adding two seats to the Court (to be appointed by a democrats president) count as “gerrymandering” of course
    Puerto Rico should long since have been admitted to statehood.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    moonshine said:

    I don’t wish to appear rude. But it’s quite something to be sufficiently high functioning that you can be elected as an MP and yet gleefully admit that you are so incurious and inept that you’ve never made even a simple meal from scratch.

    I imagine he is far from alone on that score.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    Nigelb said:

    This is an interesting/disturbing corollary of that:

    https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1307194955459375109
    Not necessarily. It’s still possible that would end up 5-3 for the ACA given the substance of the case . Not all cases come down on political lines and they could delay that anyway until a new judge is picked .
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited September 2020
  • I really think following Sweden is a bad idea for COVID
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    nico679 said:

    Not necessarily. It’s still possible that would end up 5-3 for the ACA given the substance of the case . Not all cases come down on political lines and they could delay that anyway until a new judge is picked .
    Indeed, but it is an entirely possible scenario.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,546
    edited September 2020

    I really think following Sweden is a bad idea for COVID

    I don't believe even Anders Tegnell says we should. I think what he would argue is that you need to come up with a consistent set of rules that work for your particular demographics and you stick to for the long term, not stop / start circuit breaker stuff.
  • I expect nothing less of PBers....
    In fact we have two rice cookers. One for regular use and a giant one for when we have to make curry for twenty people. It's a Sri Lankan thing.
  • In fact we have two rice cookers. One for regular use and a giant one for when we have to make curry for twenty people. It's a Sri Lankan thing.
    I hope they're paid the living wage!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912

    I don't believe even Anders Tegnell says we should. I think what he would argue is that you need to come up with a consistent set of rules that work for your particular demographics and you stick to for the long term, not stop / start circuit breaker stuff.
    We didn’t get off to a good start with the ‘masks don’t matter’ guidance, so that boat long since sailed for this government.
  • Do you think they convinced him to talk to Everton by doing the old Oxford Brookes uni move, a university in Oxford....a club in Liverpool in interested in signing you.
    Nah, he wants to play for Carlo Ancelotti, probably the best coach of this century, who signed him for Real Madrid.

    Just look at Ancelotti's record, 3 Champions Leagues, title winner in Italy, England, Germany, and France, and of course my favourite, the coach of AC Milan when they were 3 nil up at half time against Liverpool in the 2005 Champions League final.
  • For sharing pictures of their genitals, yes. And (recently in the news) death threats.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912

    I hope they're paid the living wage!
    Sounds as though the giant Sri Lankan is on a zero hours contract.
  • Nigelb said:

    Sounds as though the giant Sri Lankan is on a zero hours contract.
    I wondered why the weight was relevant, now it makes sense
  • moonshine said:

    I don’t wish to appear rude. But it’s quite something to be sufficiently high functioning that you can be elected as an MP and yet gleefully admit that you are so incurious and inept that you’ve never made even a simple meal from scratch.

    One of the saddest things about this country is how inept so many people are at preparing food for themselves and their family. It is shocking and helps to explain the epidemic of obesity and poor health that blights every town. Why isn't it a focus of government to make sure everyone can cook? At my kids' school they do zero home economics. What do you expect when schools have seen years of funding cuts and huge pressure to devote time to academic subjects. But if parents can't cook, schools don't teach it, and there are junk food takeaways on every street corner, how are people going to learn to cook?
  • On topic, gutted.

    The question is does a Trump nominee get through the Senate.

    Can't see Romney voting for a Trump nominee now, also GOP senators up for re-election might face problems if they back a Trump nominee, someone like Susan Collins would definitely be toast in Maine.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020

    For sharing pictures of their genitals, yes. And (recently in the news) death threats.
    Both seem strange things to do while hanging out of a moving car.
  • I hope they're paid the living wage!
    I look forward to enjoying your work on the northern comedy circuit.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,200
    edited September 2020
    On topic, I think Trump will struggle to get his nominee through by election day, but that probably isn't too much of a worry for him as he simply wants it to be an election issue.

    He'll struggle because it's easy to think of some GOP Senators who probably need people to ticket-split between them and Biden to be re-elected (certainly Collins and Gardner, probably McSally, possibly Tillis). This has come at a bad time for them - they can't rely on driving core vote turnout at this time and need to play the bipartisan card. Murkowski isn't up for election but loathes Trump personally and politically. A few others both have a few qualms about the principle, and have personal political agendas they'd want to pursue in the event of a Biden White House in the near future - they don't want to be part of a losing effort to help a man who may be history in a few weeks and who they never totally liked, whilst antagonising a man who may be the future for the next several years and who they quite like. They might not shout about it, but they'd be relieved if the Democrats managed to push this into January, and that will probably allow it to happen.

    It isn't a big problem for Trump, though, as it's a nice motivator for the evangelical base to vote, and a fight he'll enjoy having up to election day.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020

    On topic, gutted.

    The question is does a Trump nominee get through the Senate.

    Can't see Romney voting for a Trump nominee now, also GOP senators up for re-election might face problems if they back a Trump nominee, someone like Susan Collins would definitely be toast in Maine.

    Murkowski says she won’t vote to confirm. Romney probably won’t, either.
    Collins is likely toast anyway, so who knows which way she’ll flip ?

    Grassley, unless he changes his stance (entirely possible), is also a vote against:
    https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/how-ernst-grassley-said-they-would-handle-supreme-court-vacancy/5831959002/
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    On topic, there is nothing inherently wrong with Trump nominating RBG's President. The hypocrisy angle would be more McConnell pushing full steam ahead with a nomination.

    FWIW, I think this is a topic Trump has to handle carefully. Yes, he can motivate the evangelicals but push someone too extreme and it risks massively motivating younger voters. It is a balancing act.

    Personally, I think he will go with Amy Coney Barrett for several reasons. He can say he has replaced a woman with a woman, she is well liked by the social conservatives and, even though she is against abortion, she is on record as saying that Roe vs Wade will probably not be reversed. That might not satisfy everyone but it may be enough for some.

    But perhaps the biggest plus is that she is a devout Catholic and, if the Democrats go too hard on her nomination and opposing her, they risk alienating Catholic voters, which are significant in a number of swing states. That would also neutralise the appeal of Biden's own Catholic background to swing Catholic voters.

    Re the Senate vote, it looks like Romney has already said he won't vote for a nominee until a new President is elected. If I was Trump and McConnell, I may want to play smart with this and say to Collins that you can oppose this as well to help you with your re-election campaign.

  • Nigelb said:

    Sounds as though the giant Sri Lankan is on a zero hours contract.
    They're so much more productive than the native rice cookers.
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 709
    edited September 2020
    Re the tweet about the surge in Covid in France:

    I have been watching the Tour De France on TV and I've been shocked by some of the scenes of spectators ignoring social distancing. Most were wearing masks but about 10-15 per cent were not. Also, during the mountain ascent stages, I've seen unmasked members of the public leap into the road and shout encouragement at the cyclists only yards from their faces. The message just isn't getting through.
  • Nigelb said:

    Murkowski says she won’t vote to confirm. Romney probably won’t, either.
    Collins is likely toast anyway, so who knows which way she’ll flip ?

    Grassley, unless he changes his stance, is also a vote against:
    https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/how-ernst-grassley-said-they-would-handle-supreme-court-vacancy/5831959002/
    Thanks.
  • SandraMc said:

    Re the tweet about the surge in Covid surge in France:

    I have been watching the Tour De France on TV and I've been shocked by some of the scenes of spectators ignoring social distancing. Most were wearing masks but about 10-15 per cent were not. Also, during the mountain ascent stages, I've seen unmasked members of the public leap into the road and shout encouragement at the cyclists only yards from their faces. The message just isn't getting through.

    Its bonkers and they are allowing 5000 for the finish in Paris.

    I am surprised a cyclist hasn't tested positive after some infected fan has run alongside them screaming allez, allez, allez.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    Murkowski says she won’t vote to confirm. Romney probably won’t, either.
    Collins is likely toast anyway, so who knows which way she’ll flip ?

    Grassley, unless he changes his stance, is also a vote against:
    https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/how-ernst-grassley-said-they-would-handle-supreme-court-vacancy/5831959002/
    Collins is still within striking distance so she is not toast yet and she is a fighter.

    Graham also said he wouldn't push for someone to be confirmed so close to an election, and he is head of the Judiciary Committee.

    One thought to consider is that RBG's passing at this time will not have come as a shock to Washington insiders. They are likely to have known there was a good chance she could have died before an election. This would therefore have been wargamed (apologies for being so distasteful as the passing of someone).
  • I presume if they don't confirm Trumps pick, he will bang on about the swamp, the deep state, etc etc etc.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,518

    Nah, he wants to play for Carlo Ancelotti, probably the best coach of this century, who signed him for Real Madrid.

    Just look at Ancelotti's record, 3 Champions Leagues, title winner in Italy, England, Germany, and France, and of course my favourite, the coach of AC Milan when they were 3 nil up at half time against Liverpool in the 2005 Champions League final.
    Title's staying on Merseyside I reckon.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020
    Corey Gardner and Steve Daines are also possible waverers.

    My guess is that McConnell would get 50 votes, as Republican senators usually run more scared of Trump than the electorate.
  • dixiedean said:

    Title's staying on Merseyside I reckon.
    I agree, Thiago is one of a hell of a signing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,282
    Sean_F said:

    Viking looks are generally attractive.

    One of the many stupidities of the Nazis was their belief that somehow the many blonde-haired/blue or grey eyed slavs, were in reality ethnic Germans. in reality, it's their viking heritage.
    Didn't you see that just released research finding that there were tons of dark haired Vikings?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020
    MrEd said:

    Collins is still within striking distance so she is not toast yet and she is a fighter.

    Graham also said he wouldn't push for someone to be confirmed so close to an election, and he is head of the Judiciary Committee.

    One thought to consider is that RBG's passing at this time will not have come as a shock to Washington insiders. They are likely to have known there was a good chance she could have died before an election. This would therefore have been wargamed (apologies for being so distasteful as the passing of someone).
    Graham is a serial flip flopper. He might not push, but he’s shown time and again he can be pushed.

    And I‘m pretty sure Collins is toast; whether or not she realises it is an open question.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,153
    On the subject of cooking it doesn't seem to be a rich versus poor thing. I certainly taught my son to cook some basic dishes before he went to university however he did have a few tales of amazement to tell when he came home including one student trying to cook dried pasta by frying it in a frying pan.

    As to the comment about no home economics taught in schools so how can anyone learn to cook....you have noticed that tv is replete with cookery shows? In addition there are plenty of youtube video how to's.

    I never had home economics at school either but it really isn't difficult to learn I did it from recipe books and cooking shows way before the internet was a thing. It really isn't rocket science
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,282

    Anyone seen @LadyG recently?

    Presumably busy lining up a cottage somewhere pleasant, ready for "stay at home, the sequel"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,127
    edited September 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Another Senator comes to terms with publicly expressing his hypocrisy.

    https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1307294311667597312

    They remind me of Labour in 2015 (and 1992) claiming a government which had lost its majority must resign at once, and in 2010 claiming that despite receiving the lowest voteshare and third worst result in seats of any governing party since 1832 as Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he had the right to remain in office at least until a new government was formed.

    The amusing irony - apart from the fact they were wrong in 2010, due to poor advice from Gus O’Donnell - is that in both in ‘92 and 2015 the government confounded them by retaining a majority.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    Corey Gardner and Steve Daines are also possible waverers.

    My guess is that McConnell would get 50 votes, as Republican senators usually run more scared of Trump than the electorate.

    If you are Trump and McConnell, the smart path is probably:

    (1) Trump nominates someone who appeals to social conservatives and evangelicals but who is not so far out there (which is why I suggested Coney Barrett);
    (2) McConnell pushes to get the vote done to please the evangelicals;
    (3) A number of Republican Senators in vulnerable positions (Collins, Gardner etc) state they will vote for the nominee but will not vote on a successor until a new President is elected. It has the double benefit of allowing them to look principled and also say to the evangelical base "if you want a conservative SC Justice to be elected, you are going to get off your ass and vote for me in the Senate elections."

    Personally, I don't think Trump is really going to take it out on any Senator who crosses him on not pushing ahead with the SC pick. If he doesn't get elected, he doesn't care and, if he is re-elected, it is likely the Senate will stay with the GOP so his pick will go through regardless.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    Graham is a serial flip flopper. He might not push, but he’s shown time and again he can be pushed.

    And I‘m pretty sure Collins is toast; whether or not she realises it is an open question.
    Apart from Quinnipac, Gideon's lead over Collins has been +4% to +5% with a large block of undecideds. I wouldn't call her toast from that unless you see Quinnipac as the Platinum standard
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,200
    edited September 2020
    Nigelb said:

    Graham is a serial flip flopper. He might not push, but he’s shown time and again he can be pushed.

    And I‘m pretty sure Collins is toast; whether or not she realises it is an open question.
    Collins isn't "toast". She's got an uphill battle, but polls generally show her opponent's lead in the low-ish single figures. You'd bet against her at this stage, but it's not a Colorado or Alabama situation where it'd be really, really surprising if the incumbent clung on and they might as well save their energy and go on holiday at this point.

    Indeed, the fact it's fairly close is precisely why she'll be careful and strategic rather than cast an "ah, f*** it" vote.
  • IanB2 said:

    Didn't you see that just released research finding that there were tons of dark haired Vikings?
    And the odd black one. The sagas speak of blámenn, blue men. Viking was after all a job description, not an ethnicity. The Icelanders have as many British and Irish genes as Norwegian so dark-haired Celts.

    I was recently in Copenhagen, and at the Nasionalmuseet there was a bog body of a young girl from the pre-Roman Iron age. From genetic analysis they reckon she was dark-skinned and blonde.

    The concept of race and homo sapiens is deeply flawed. We apparently don't have enough differences to qualify for the biological description of different races.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912

    Thanks.
    While I don’t think in the end this will determine the result of the Presidential election, it is going to matter a great deal in close Senate races.
    As per this list:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/mitch-mcconnell-senate-votes-ginsburg-supreme-court.html
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Collins isn't "toast". She's got an uphill battle, but polls generally show her opponent's lead in the low-ish single figures. You'd bet against her at this stage, but it's not a Colorado or Alabama situation where it'd be really, really surprising if the incumbent clung on and they might as well save their energy and go on holiday at this point.

    Indeed, the fact it's fairly close is precisely why she'll be careful and strategic rather than cast an "ah, f*** it" vote.
    Alabama is probably more of a lost cause than Colorado. The Democrats won Colorado by 5% in 2016 but, more to the point, Hicklenhooper has been hit by a number of scandals and being censored by the independent standards board. Hard to tell because there does not look to be much in the way of polling there
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020

    Collins isn't "toast". She's got an uphill battle, but polls generally show her opponent's lead in the low-ish single figures. You'd bet against her at this stage, but it's not a Colorado or Alabama situation where it'd be really, really surprising if the incumbent clung on and they might as well save their energy and go on holiday at this point.

    Indeed, the fact it's fairly close is precisely why she'll be careful and strategic rather than cast an "ah, f*** it" vote.
    Whichever way she jumps is going to cost her, however much she agonises - which is a large part of why she’s toast this time around. Her independent Republican schtick simply doesn’t work anymore with a lot of Democrats who’ve voted for her in the past, and Republicans won’t forgive an abstention.
  • Its bonkers and they are allowing 5000 for the finish in Paris.

    I am surprised a cyclist hasn't tested positive after some infected fan has run alongside them screaming allez, allez, allez.
    I don't think that's going to happen outside. But people clumping together waiting for the peloton to go past is probably a different matter
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    This is an interesting/disturbing corollary of that:

    https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1307194955459375109
    Yup, the first thing the Biden Presidency will need to do is reimplement Obamacare.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    Whichever way she jumps is going to cost her, however much she agonises - which is a large part of why she’s toast this time around. Her independent Republican schtick simply doesn’t work anymore with a lot of Democrats who’ve voted for her in the past, and Republicans won’t forgive an abstention.
    People from Maine are definitely sui generis. Being seen as independent certainly gains you more kudos than voting on religious lines.
  • https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/19/billionaire-chuck-feeney-achieves-goal-of-giving-away-his-fortune

    This is an interesting story in light of recent debates on here about inheritance and rich lefties voluntarily paying extra tax.
  • Nigelb said:

    Whichever way she jumps is going to cost her, however much she agonises - which is a large part of why she’s toast this time around. Her independent Republican schtick simply doesn’t work anymore with a lot of Democrats who’ve voted for her in the past, and Republicans won’t forgive an abstention.
    I'd have thought her strategy will be to quietly support procedural moves to avoid her having to vote (or abstain) on the substance. Punt it into the long grass beyond the election as she's nothing to gain from any of it as you say.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    I don't believe even Anders Tegnell says we should. I think what he would argue is that you need to come up with a consistent set of rules that work for your particular demographics and you stick to for the long term, not stop / start circuit breaker stuff.
    Yes, long term consistent rules. The desperate desire to "reopen" has been the achilles heel of the UK approach

    That said Sweden is about to start allowing care home visits again.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    By coincidence a poll was done into the SC only a few days ago .

    You get some interesting answers , whether people might change their answer when faced with the situation actually occurring we’ll see when they do further polling .

    Briefly a clear majority favour hearings being held for a nominee in 2020 but at the same time a clear majority think what the GOP did in 2016 was wrong .

    Depending on which of those two competing views wins out we might see some effect on the polling .
  • moonshine said:

    I don’t wish to appear rude. But it’s quite something to be sufficiently high functioning that you can be elected as an MP and yet gleefully admit that you are so incurious and inept that you’ve never made even a simple meal from scratch.

    Yes, it's Tory MPs who are supposed to be completely out of touch with everyday life.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    And the odd black one. The sagas speak of blámenn, blue men. Viking was after all a job description, not an ethnicity. The Icelanders have as many British and Irish genes as Norwegian so dark-haired Celts.

    I was recently in Copenhagen, and at the Nasionalmuseet there was a bog body of a young girl from the pre-Roman Iron age. From genetic analysis they reckon she was dark-skinned and blonde.

    The concept of race and homo sapiens is deeply flawed. We apparently don't have enough differences to qualify for the biological description of different races.
    "Race is a social construct" sounds like some kind of ultra-woke post millennium phrase but it actually comes from the 1940s.

    If you take the exact same person of mixed parentage and put them in America and then in Brazil you would get a different answer from the man on the street in that country as to whether they were 'white' or not.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    Puerto Rico should long since have been admitted to statehood.
    Charles is in favour of taxation without representation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Democrats odds are creeping up so for once my decision to make a major move has paid off.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    MrEd said:

    Apart from Quinnipac, Gideon's lead over Collins has been +4% to +5% with a large block of undecideds. I wouldn't call her toast from that unless you see Quinnipac as the Platinum standard
    Collins is toast if she votes before the election . Undecideds would prefer Biden to pick the next SC judge and that shows up in a range of polling for Maine .
  • Alistair said:

    "Race is a social construct" sounds like some kind of ultra-woke post millennium phrase but it actually comes from the 1940s.

    If you take the exact same person of mixed parentage and put them in America and then in Brazil you would get a different answer from the man on the street in that country as to whether they were 'white' or not.
    Only in America could they come up with the theory that Irish people were not ‘white’.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,912
    edited September 2020

    I'd have thought her strategy will be to quietly support procedural moves to avoid her having to vote (or abstain) on the substance. Punt it into the long grass beyond the election as she's nothing to gain from any of it as you say.
    But it is precisely her recently earned reputation for temporising on difficult issues which has cost her the support of those who believed in her long cultivated image as a strong independent voice.
    ‘Susan Collins is concerned’ didn’t become a meme for no reason.
  • Alistair said:

    "Race is a social construct" sounds like some kind of ultra-woke post millennium phrase but it actually comes from the 1940s.

    If you take the exact same person of mixed parentage and put them in America and then in Brazil you would get a different answer from the man on the street in that country as to whether they were 'white' or not.
    It's still garbage to deny that race exists, though. Just because some particular individual might not fit into some category, or that there are people whose parents are of different races, doesn't mean that the category itself is meaningless. Or are you really saying that there are no identifiable genetic, visible and measurable differences between the populations of, say, Iceland, Japan, and Ghana?

    The problem isn't the concept, it's the illogical application of that concept.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    ydoethur said:

    They remind me of Labour in 2015 (and 1992) claiming a government which had lost its majority must resign at once, and in 2010 claiming that despite receiving the lowest voteshare and third worst result in seats of any governing party since 1832 as Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he had the right to remain in office at least until a new government was formed.

    The amusing irony - apart from the fact they were wrong in 2010, due to poor advice from Gus O’Donnell - is that in both in ‘92 and 2015 the government confounded them by retaining a majority.
    In most countries the the outgoing prime minister and ministers stay in place until the details of ther new government is agreeed. This is what happened in Ireland this year.
  • A very interesting thread by Dave Wasserman:

    https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1307300610044297217
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    It's still garbage to deny that race exists, though. Just because some particular individual might not fit into some category, or that there are people whose parents are of different races, doesn't mean that the category itself is meaningless. Or are you really saying that there are no identifiable genetic, visible and measurable differences between the populations of, say, Iceland, Japan, and Ghana?

    The problem isn't the concept, it's the illogical application of that concept.
    He did not say that race "does not exist", he said it is a "social construct". Good luck trying to define race based on genes.
  • Only in America could they come up with the theory that Irish people were not ‘white’.
    Didn't that used to be the case in Britain?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,127
    IshmaelZ said:
    The alternative is a terrible ham.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,669
    eristdoof said:

    In most countries the the outgoing prime minister and ministers stay in place until the details of ther new government is agreeed. This is what happened in Ireland this year.
    Cos they don't have the same constitution, it's more like America with a strong supreme court upholding a written constitution. HM Gov has more primacy so one would be more antsy about any situation where the government does not enjoy the support of the people.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,277
    edited September 2020
    The thing with RBG is she’s very well known in the USA and has a high favourable rating . I expect Trump will get to put in his nominee but Biden will still win the election . And then things will turn very ugly next year when the Dems anger over this will spill into some drastic actions . It’s not just about the SC but other judges in lower courts .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,852
    MrEd said:

    Collins is still within striking distance so she is not toast yet and she is a fighter.

    Graham also said he wouldn't push for someone to be confirmed so close to an election, and he is head of the Judiciary Committee.

    One thought to consider is that RBG's passing at this time will not have come as a shock to Washington insiders. They are likely to have known there was a good chance she could have died before an election. This would therefore have been wargamed (apologies for being so distasteful as the passing of someone).
    I think not pushing to have someone confirmed before the election definitely works in Trump's favour. It also minimises the risks to Cory Gardner and Susan Collins, both of whom probably want to appear as bipartisan as possible before the election. (And, while the polling is old, Maine is one of the most pro-Choice states in the whole US.)

    The more interesting question is this: if Trump loses, and if that loss is accompanied by the loss of the Senate, then does Trump attempt to push through a new Supreme Court Justice in the lame duck session? And if so, what are the odds Bill Barr is the man?
  • Alistair said:

    Yup, the first thing the Biden Presidency will need to do is reimplement Obamacare.
    I think the case going before the Supreme Court isn't as simple as that.

    As I understand it, the technical argument being heard is that what made the ACA unconstitutional was Trump's/the GOP's own decision to cut the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate (the requirement to purchase insurance) to nil. So, even if that point is accepted, it appears likely it can be rectified with a relatively simple change so the penalty is no longer nil (which wouldn't happen under Trump but would under Biden).

    Further, the Texas judge that upheld the technical point rather dubiously accepted that, if that limited part was unconstitutional, the whole structure was. Now it is by no means a given, even if they accept the technical point, the SCOTUS would split on liberal/conservative lines on that aspect. They are still, after all, judges, and indeed both Trump's appointees went against him on the recent case on Presidential tax records (albeit winning him some concessions on timing etc in the process). It would not shock me at all if the court compromised on upholding the limited part of the lower court's ruling but rejected the broader part.
  • eristdoof said:

    He did not say that race "does not exist", he said it is a "social construct". Good luck trying to define race based on genes.
    Of course you can define race based on genes. Are you seriously suggesting that given three samples of DNA, one each from a person of Icelandic heritage, Japanese heritage, and Ghanian heritage, that a lab wouldn't typically be able to tell which was which?

    Of course these are fuzzy sets. But we're grown ups here, we can understand that just because a set is fuzzy at the edges, that doesn't mean it is meaningless.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,127
    edited September 2020
    eristdoof said:

    In most countries the the outgoing prime minister and ministers stay in place until the details of ther new government is agreeed. This is what happened in Ireland this year.
    So what?

    The precedents are crystal clear. Admittedly not to Gus O'Donnell, but he didn't know what he was talking about. Labour were completely wrong not to resign at once in 2010.

    The only partial exception - and the one O'Donnell seems to have cited - is February 1974. However, at the time of the election it was very unclear who led the largest party, due to the changes in Northern Ireland. So while Heath probably should have resigned, it wasn't a given he should have done.

    The most pertinent precedent - and the only one in the age of universal suffrage - was Baldwin in 1929, who resigned on coming a clear second in terms of seats even though he narrowly won the popular vote. He took the view that a majority government that had not only lost its majority but come second had been rejected should leave office. And in our system, that's the way it should be if Brown was not a megalomaniac.

    Edit - the irony of course is that from all points of view their attempt to hang on was incredibly politically damaging. It further eroded their credibility and effectively forced the Liberal Democrats to do a deal with the Tories, which has had to put it mildly severe negative repercussions for Labour ever since.
This discussion has been closed.