That was pretty much my reaction. And I'm not American.
She asks whether this year can get any worse.
Oh yes. Much, much worse...
I suspect that 2021 isn't going to be any better than 2020.
It could be ;-
Trump gone, Biden President US rejoins Paris Agreement Coronavirus vaccine approved Electric cars become cheaper than ICE vehicles
In fact at least some of those stand a good chance of happening.
Until they have a comparable range and a reasonable recharge time, ‘being cheaper’ than ICE isn’t going to help much.
An average EV can get 250 miles and it will be fully charged each morning (so you'll not need to charge for most trips and if you do it can be done in 30 minutes). Not enough? Some can already get 400 miles. Also see 'Battery Day' next Tuesday.
My quite cheap diesel can do 800 miles and takes seven minutes to refuel.
When an average EV can do 500 miles on one charge and fully recharge in 45 minutes ICE will be done.
Edit - I would also like to know which EVs can do 400. The one with the best range I know of is the Kona at 259 miles. Even allowing for good driving I don’t think that would go 400 miles.
Tesla Model S Long Range - 379 miles Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 348 miles - these are available now.
£38000 is unfortunately rather out of my budget. Moreover, the size and styling of the car isn’t great for what I want. Any that will do the same thing with decent boot space and a price tag around the £20-25000 mark?
... 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.
We’re back to ‘electric cars become cheaper than ICE cars.’ Except actually, we’re modifying it to ‘they come within a reasonably similar budget range and will do an acceptable if inferior job,’ as the price I’ve quoted is about five thousand above the ICE equivalent, or call it four thousand gallons of diesel, which would take me 280,000 miles.
Since changing from a BMW model 1 to a Kia e-niro, the amount of time I spend refuelling/recharging has plumetted. Back then, twice every three weeks, I had to drive off my route (or make a dedicated special trip) to a garage, and refuel (at around 50 quid). Realistically, it added twenty or thirty minutes to the day. More if a dedicated trip was necessary.
Meanwhile, my eniro sorts itself out overnight when I sleep. I park at home and plug it in (10 seconds or so) and go indoors. And it recharges overnight on cheap electricity for about four quid.
I wouldn’t describe it as an “acceptable if inferior job”; if anything, it’s a better job. Only on the very rare occasions I need to drive 260 miles + between getting home will I need to recharge away from home.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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?
No. ‘Racial’ prejudice doesn’t have to be based on skin colour.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
Only in America could they come up with the theory that Irish people were not ‘white’.
Don't think of it in teems of 'white'. Think of it as in group and out group. Using white to refer to the in group is a relatively recent development in American terms.
Thus the idea of the "Hiberno-Iberian" (as the Spanish were also part of the out group) being considered functionally indistinguishable from the Negro and other gems of scientific racism.
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 ?
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?
At that stage, I suspect some GOP Senators will be taken aside and told, "Hello Senator Prodworthy... you know that bridge you wanted in your state, and the tax break for your local loggers you've been pushing for? Well, President Elect Biden is very interested in cutting the ribbon on the Prodworthy Bridge and passing the Prodworthy Act into law... but will suddenly be much, much less interested if you confirm Trump's SCOTUS appointment".
Do all GOP Senator's like Bill Barr and Donald Trump enough to provide them with a parting gift at the expense of making themselves irrelevant under President Biden and missing out on getting stuff for their state? Not sure they do.
Things change very quickly if there is a new President Elect. Power ebbs away incredibly fast.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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.
Quite. But the notion of race as understood by a geneticist is completely different from what the man on the street or the SeanTs of this world understand when the word race is used.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
Only in America could they come up with the theory that Irish people were not ‘white’.
Don't think of it in teems of 'white'. Think of it as in group and out group. Using white to refer to the in group is a relatively recent development in American terms.
Exactly. That's why class politics often gets mixed into this in an otherwise inexplicable way.
It's currently 53-47. Doug Jones in Alabama is up for re-election, and I don't expect him to continue as a Senator (short of a miracle).
That makes in 54-46.
The two most vulnerable Republicans - looking at the partisan lean of their states - are Susan Collins and Cory Gardner. While I think Ms Collins will put up an excellent fight, I think she's likely to lose this time around. And I think the same is true of Cory Gardner. (PBers should note that in 2016 not a single state had a different result at the Senate and Presidential level. Ticket splitting is increasingly rare.)
Now, could they keep one or both these seats? Sure. I can make plausible arguments in both cases (Collins has historically won big, and only trails Gideon by low single digits in most polls - excluding today's, while Hickenlooper has got himself in a bit of a scandal. But I just don't see there being enough ticket splitting to save either of them.)
52-48.
Now, Arizona. Based on my drive through rural Arizona on Monday and Tuesday, I can tell you that Trump's support outside big cities is strong. My rough poster count would be 100 Trump/Pence against 20 for Biden/Harris. Unfortunately, I saw the the grand total of zero (no joke) McSally posters, against a reasonable number for Kelly (certainly more than for Biden.) Now, I wouldn't read too much into this. We didn't see a lot of Tucson or Scottsdale or Phoenix. But it didn't seem like there was any enthusiasm for McSally. I'm going to go with Kelly handily outperforming Biden in Arizona, and a Democrat pickup.
51-49.
Now it gets much harder for the Democrats. I previously thought the Democrats had a chance against the unpopular Joni Ernst, but not so much anymore.
I think if Loefller and a Democrat go through to a January run-off in the Senate, then the Dems pick that up.
And the Dems have good, but outside shots in a bunch of states. My gut tells me 50-50 is the most likely position come the new Senate.
That was pretty much my reaction. And I'm not American.
She asks whether this year can get any worse.
Oh yes. Much, much worse...
I suspect that 2021 isn't going to be any better than 2020.
It could be ;-
Trump gone, Biden President US rejoins Paris Agreement Coronavirus vaccine approved Electric cars become cheaper than ICE vehicles
In fact at least some of those stand a good chance of happening.
Until they have a comparable range and a reasonable recharge time, ‘being cheaper’ than ICE isn’t going to help much.
An average EV can get 250 miles and it will be fully charged each morning (so you'll not need to charge for most trips and if you do it can be done in 30 minutes). Not enough? Some can already get 400 miles. Also see 'Battery Day' next Tuesday.
My quite cheap diesel can do 800 miles and takes seven minutes to refuel.
When an average EV can do 500 miles on one charge and fully recharge in 45 minutes ICE will be done.
Edit - I would also like to know which EVs can do 400. The one with the best range I know of is the Kona at 259 miles. Even allowing for good driving I don’t think that would go 400 miles.
Tesla Model S Long Range - 379 miles Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 348 miles - these are available now.
£38000 is unfortunately rather out of my budget. Moreover, the size and styling of the car isn’t great for what I want. Any that will do the same thing with decent boot space and a price tag around the £20-25000 mark?
... 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.
We’re back to ‘electric cars become cheaper than ICE cars.’ Except actually, we’re modifying it to ‘they come within a reasonably similar budget range and will do an acceptable if inferior job,’ as the price I’ve quoted is about five thousand above the ICE equivalent, or call it four thousand gallons of diesel, which would take me 280,000 miles.
Since changing from a BMW model 1 to a Kia e-niro, the amount of time I spend refuelling/recharging has plumetted. Back then, twice every three weeks, I had to drive off my route (or make a dedicated special trip) to a garage, and refuel (at around 50 quid). Realistically, it added twenty or thirty minutes to the day. More if a dedicated trip was necessary.
Meanwhile, my eniro sorts itself out overnight when I sleep. I park at home and plug it in (10 seconds or so) and go indoors. And it recharges overnight on cheap electricity for about four quid.
I wouldn’t describe it as an “acceptable if inferior job”; if anything, it’s a better job. Only on the very rare occasions I need to drive 260 miles + between getting home will I need to recharge away from home.
Is that four quid for a full charge from top to bottom?
This is the question to which I've been struggling to get an answer.
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.
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.
Brown's performance in his last ten days in office was of a piece with the rest of his Prime Ministership. It was so dismal that it simply defied rational explanation, especially since he didn't have Theresa May's or John Major's excuse of a feeble majority. Most of our government was paralysed between 2008 and 2010 (I know, I was working for it at the time) to an extent greater than I can remember for any administration with a fairly large majority.
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.
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.
Brown's performance in his last ten days in office was of a piece with the rest of his Prime Ministership. It was so dismal that it simply defied rational explanation, especially since he didn't have Theresa May's or John Major's excuse of a feeble majority. Most of our government was paralysed between 2008 and 2010 (I know, I was working for it at the time) to an extent greater than I can remember for any administration with a fairly large majority.
Well, you were luckier than me. Thanks to them, I wasn't working at all from 2008-2010.
That works for Trump. He wanted to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, but the Washington swamp wouldn't let him, citing silly things like "time" and "reality".
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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.
The unfortunately named geneticist David Reich has an excellent, nuanced, article on genetics and race
Off-topic, but I must say this house selling lark is easier than last time we tried it. Last weekend we had pitches from two estate agencies. Commissioned the one we wanted on Monday. Photos taken Wednesday. On the market Thursday. Three viewings Friday. Just had a verbal offer at the asking price (which was set to be negotiated down) with another viewing tomorrow and one of the other viewing people yesterday also really interested.
OK, I know its only a verbal offer (as the estate agent isn't open this afternoon) but blimey! 48 hours? And we may see a bidding war next as well?
Interesting but imo the issue in this election remains as it was always going to be - Donald Trump. Has America had its fill of this guy as their president? They've had 4 years to make their mind up. I think they have.
That was pretty much my reaction. And I'm not American.
She asks whether this year can get any worse.
Oh yes. Much, much worse...
I suspect that 2021 isn't going to be any better than 2020.
It could be ;-
Trump gone, Biden President US rejoins Paris Agreement Coronavirus vaccine approved Electric cars become cheaper than ICE vehicles
In fact at least some of those stand a good chance of happening.
Until they have a comparable range and a reasonable recharge time, ‘being cheaper’ than ICE isn’t going to help much.
An average EV can get 250 miles and it will be fully charged each morning (so you'll not need to charge for most trips and if you do it can be done in 30 minutes). Not enough? Some can already get 400 miles. Also see 'Battery Day' next Tuesday.
My quite cheap diesel can do 800 miles and takes seven minutes to refuel.
When an average EV can do 500 miles on one charge and fully recharge in 45 minutes ICE will be done.
Edit - I would also like to know which EVs can do 400. The one with the best range I know of is the Kona at 259 miles. Even allowing for good driving I don’t think that would go 400 miles.
Tesla Model S Long Range - 379 miles Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 348 miles - these are available now.
£38000 is unfortunately rather out of my budget. Moreover, the size and styling of the car isn’t great for what I want. Any that will do the same thing with decent boot space and a price tag around the £20-25000 mark?
... 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.
We’re back to ‘electric cars become cheaper than ICE cars.’ Except actually, we’re modifying it to ‘they come within a reasonably similar budget range and will do an acceptable if inferior job,’ as the price I’ve quoted is about five thousand above the ICE equivalent, or call it four thousand gallons of diesel, which would take me 280,000 miles.
Since changing from a BMW model 1 to a Kia e-niro, the amount of time I spend refuelling/recharging has plumetted. Back then, twice every three weeks, I had to drive off my route (or make a dedicated special trip) to a garage, and refuel (at around 50 quid). Realistically, it added twenty or thirty minutes to the day. More if a dedicated trip was necessary.
Meanwhile, my eniro sorts itself out overnight when I sleep. I park at home and plug it in (10 seconds or so) and go indoors. And it recharges overnight on cheap electricity for about four quid.
I wouldn’t describe it as an “acceptable if inferior job”; if anything, it’s a better job. Only on the very rare occasions I need to drive 260 miles + between getting home will I need to recharge away from home.
Is that four quid for a full charge from top to bottom?
This is the question to which I've been struggling to get an answer.
That’s for a full charge top-to-bottom over two nights (because I only use about half charge per day. Go for an Octopus off-peak EV tariff, and it’s 5.5p per kilowatt-hour for five hours. At 7kW for your home charger, that’s 35 kwh (140 miles) for under two quid. If you need to charge outside that time, it’s about 15p per kWh, so call it 6 quid for a full bottom to top charge in one night, or 2 quid per night for halfway to top
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.
So are you saying that if Clarence Thomas dies next year then a President Biden should not nominate a liberal to succeed him ?
It's currently 53-47. Doug Jones in Alabama is up for re-election, and I don't expect him to continue as a Senator (short of a miracle).
That makes in 54-46.
The two most vulnerable Republicans - looking at the partisan lean of their states - are Susan Collins and Cory Gardner. While I think Ms Collins will put up an excellent fight, I think she's likely to lose this time around. And I think the same is true of Cory Gardner. (PBers should note that in 2016 not a single state had a different result at the Senate and Presidential level. Ticket splitting is increasingly rare.)
Now, could they keep one or both these seats? Sure. I can make plausible arguments in both cases (Collins has historically won big, and only trails Gideon by low single digits in most polls - excluding today's, while Hickenlooper has got himself in a bit of a scandal. But I just don't see there being enough ticket splitting to save either of them.)
52-48.
Now, Arizona. Based on my drive through rural Arizona on Monday and Tuesday, I can tell you that Trump's support outside big cities is strong. My rough poster count would be 100 Trump/Pence against 20 for Biden/Harris. Unfortunately, I saw the the grand total of zero (no joke) McSally posters, against a reasonable number for Kelly (certainly more than for Biden.) Now, I wouldn't read too much into this. We didn't see a lot of Tucson or Scottsdale or Phoenix. But it didn't seem like there was any enthusiasm for McSally. I'm going to go with Kelly handily outperforming Biden in Arizona, and a Democrat pickup.
51-49.
Now it gets much harder for the Democrats. I previously thought the Democrats had a chance against the unpopular Joni Ernst, but not so much anymore.
I think if Loefller and a Democrat go through to a January run-off in the Senate, then the Dems pick that up.
And the Dems have good, but outside shots in a bunch of states. My gut tells me 50-50 is the most likely position come the new Senate.
A perfectly fair analysis.
I'd agree Alabama is an almost certain Dem to GOP switch, Colorado a very likely switch the other way, and Maine less likely but still you'd guess 75% chance to go blue. Kelly is just a very strong candidate in Arizona and McSally an appointed incumbent who was rejected in 2018.
I'd say North Carolina is the Democrats' next best shot and will probably go with the Presidency - if Trump wins, it'll stay Republican, if Biden wins it won't. There are a few other outside Democrat shots that would go Democrat on a very good night for them.
Wildcard is Alaska - I can see that doing something odd even if Trump wins. It's the state most likely to split in a really dramatic way between President and Senate. One or two others could split, but only in the sense of 51/49 in the Presidential and 49/51 in the Senate election. Alaska could flip while going 60/40, or at least 55/45 for Trump (as it did in 2008 for McCain/Begich).
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.
Arguably being unable to cook would make him quite representative of many members of the public.
This is why companies should never give into the mob. The mob might be loud, but they rarely represent the public and not as big as they might seem.
It was like the trans-activist the other week that the Co-Op appeared to bend the knee to after the Co-Op advertised in the Spectator. When the higher ups took a look, all that the outrage had been caused by somebody with a few 100 twitter followers and they reversed the decision.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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.
The unfortunately named geneticist David Reich has an excellent, nuanced, article on genetics and race
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 ?
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?
That would be quite in character. But I don't think they would get away with it. Straw that breaks the camel's.
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.
In the Amazon doc on Spurs, Dele Alli admits that he did baked beans for himself for the first time ever in his life during lockdown.
Re. Boris. Many PB’ers know what it’s like to hold a senior job. Multiply up for being PM, even in normal times. Then consider he has a new and likely demanding (judging from character) partner who is decades younger. And a new baby just arrived, in his 50s. While recovering from having been in intensive care for virus notorious for lingering after effects. And he has issues of global significance on his plate.
Any one of those would leave most of us exhausted.
It is just as well he definitely HASN’T been chasing after and having an affair with a musician on the side; he would have no energy or attention left whatsoever to devote to his responsibilities.
That was pretty much my reaction. And I'm not American.
She asks whether this year can get any worse.
Oh yes. Much, much worse...
I suspect that 2021 isn't going to be any better than 2020.
It could be ;-
Trump gone, Biden President US rejoins Paris Agreement Coronavirus vaccine approved Electric cars become cheaper than ICE vehicles
In fact at least some of those stand a good chance of happening.
Until they have a comparable range and a reasonable recharge time, ‘being cheaper’ than ICE isn’t going to help much.
An average EV can get 250 miles and it will be fully charged each morning (so you'll not need to charge for most trips and if you do it can be done in 30 minutes). Not enough? Some can already get 400 miles. Also see 'Battery Day' next Tuesday.
My quite cheap diesel can do 800 miles and takes seven minutes to refuel.
When an average EV can do 500 miles on one charge and fully recharge in 45 minutes ICE will be done.
Edit - I would also like to know which EVs can do 400. The one with the best range I know of is the Kona at 259 miles. Even allowing for good driving I don’t think that would go 400 miles.
Tesla Model S Long Range - 379 miles Tesla Model 3 Long Range - 348 miles - these are available now.
£38000 is unfortunately rather out of my budget. Moreover, the size and styling of the car isn’t great for what I want. Any that will do the same thing with decent boot space and a price tag around the £20-25000 mark?
... 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.
We’re back to ‘electric cars become cheaper than ICE cars.’ Except actually, we’re modifying it to ‘they come within a reasonably similar budget range and will do an acceptable if inferior job,’ as the price I’ve quoted is about five thousand above the ICE equivalent, or call it four thousand gallons of diesel, which would take me 280,000 miles.
Since changing from a BMW model 1 to a Kia e-niro, the amount of time I spend refuelling/recharging has plumetted. Back then, twice every three weeks, I had to drive off my route (or make a dedicated special trip) to a garage, and refuel (at around 50 quid). Realistically, it added twenty or thirty minutes to the day. More if a dedicated trip was necessary.
Meanwhile, my eniro sorts itself out overnight when I sleep. I park at home and plug it in (10 seconds or so) and go indoors. And it recharges overnight on cheap electricity for about four quid.
I wouldn’t describe it as an “acceptable if inferior job”; if anything, it’s a better job. Only on the very rare occasions I need to drive 260 miles + between getting home will I need to recharge away from home.
Is that four quid for a full charge from top to bottom?
This is the question to which I've been struggling to get an answer.
That’s for a full charge top-to-bottom over two nights (because I only use about half charge per day. Go for an Octopus off-peak EV tariff, and it’s 5.5p per kilowatt-hour for five hours. At 7kW for your home charger, that’s 35 kwh (140 miles) for under two quid. If you need to charge outside that time, it’s about 15p per kWh, so call it 6 quid for a full bottom to top charge in one night, or 2 quid per night for halfway to top
Re. Boris. Many PB’ers know what it’s like to hold a senior job. Multiply up for being PM, even in normal times. Then consider he has a new and likely demanding (judging from character) partner who is decades younger. And a new baby just arrived, in his 50s. While recovering from having been in intensive care for virus notorious for lingering after effects. And he has issues of global significance on his plate.
Any one of those would leave most of us exhausted.
It is just as well he definitely HASN’T been chasing after and having an affair with a musician on the side; he would have no energy or attention left whatsoever to devote to his responsibilities.
He devotes energy and attention to his responsibilities?
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.
So are you saying that if Clarence Thomas dies next year then a President Biden should not nominate a liberal to succeed him ?
I've got no particular view either way - except to say that partisanship in the law ought to be a no no and I imagine everyone agrees with that. My point is there will be a Dem backlash if the Republicans somehow manage to replace RBG with a Con judge during Transition after losing the election. Although I doubt they would get away with it. Once Trump has lost the election power will drain away.
I am sure I am not imagining that the average Swedish girl is more attractive than the average Brit.
Romanian girls too
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?
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.
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.
Quite. But the notion of race as understood by a geneticist is completely different from what the man on the street or the SeanTs of this world understand when the word race is used.
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.
So are you saying that if Clarence Thomas dies next year then a President Biden should not nominate a liberal to succeed him ?
I've got no particular view either way - except to say that partisanship in the law ought to be a no no and I imagine everyone agrees with that. My point is there will be a Dem backlash if the Republicans somehow manage to replace RBG with a Con judge during Transition after losing the election. Although I doubt they would get away with it. Once Trump has lost the election power will drain away.
Partisanship in law has been part of US politics for decades.
That doesn't seem to do the USA any good but that's what happens when you have a country so dominated by lawyers.
Of course the best way of reducing the importance and political aspect of US judges would be to let the people decide on matters via their elected representatives.
Which in the case of abortion is what happens in the rest of the western world.
In other news, the overnight YouGov is interesting in that it shows the government's strategy of throwing out Brexit and culture wars red meat out there to keep its voting coalition together and to depress Labour support is not working. Should that become established, and with what is coming, what else do the Tories have except the nuclear option of changing leader?
Notably, this was the first YouGov to give Labour 40% or more of the vote share since July 2018.
Actually if you look at the details of the poll the LDs are down 5% from 11% to 6% since GE19 and Labour up 8% from 32% to 40%, the Tories are only down 3% from 43% to 40%.
So the Tories are still holding most of their vote, the main movement is still Remainers from the LDs to Starmer Labour, that would leave the Tories as largest party but Starmer able to become PM with SNP and LD support in a hung parliament
The Tories are down from 44.6% to 40%. Yougov uses GB data.
Comments
Back then, twice every three weeks, I had to drive off my route (or make a dedicated special trip) to a garage, and refuel (at around 50 quid). Realistically, it added twenty or thirty minutes to the day. More if a dedicated trip was necessary.
Meanwhile, my eniro sorts itself out overnight when I sleep. I park at home and plug it in (10 seconds or so) and go indoors. And it recharges overnight on cheap electricity for about four quid.
I wouldn’t describe it as an “acceptable if inferior job”; if anything, it’s a better job. Only on the very rare occasions I need to drive 260 miles + between getting home will I need to recharge away from home.
Thus the idea of the "Hiberno-Iberian" (as the Spanish were also part of the out group) being considered functionally indistinguishable from the Negro and other gems of scientific racism.
Do all GOP Senator's like Bill Barr and Donald Trump enough to provide them with a parting gift at the expense of making themselves irrelevant under President Biden and missing out on getting stuff for their state? Not sure they do.
Things change very quickly if there is a new President Elect. Power ebbs away incredibly fast.
but
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1307321159113936896
It's currently 53-47. Doug Jones in Alabama is up for re-election, and I don't expect him to continue as a Senator (short of a miracle).
That makes in 54-46.
The two most vulnerable Republicans - looking at the partisan lean of their states - are Susan Collins and Cory Gardner. While I think Ms Collins will put up an excellent fight, I think she's likely to lose this time around. And I think the same is true of Cory Gardner. (PBers should note that in 2016 not a single state had a different result at the Senate and Presidential level. Ticket splitting is increasingly rare.)
Now, could they keep one or both these seats? Sure. I can make plausible arguments in both cases (Collins has historically won big, and only trails Gideon by low single digits in most polls - excluding today's, while Hickenlooper has got himself in a bit of a scandal. But I just don't see there being enough ticket splitting to save either of them.)
52-48.
Now, Arizona. Based on my drive through rural Arizona on Monday and Tuesday, I can tell you that Trump's support outside big cities is strong. My rough poster count would be 100 Trump/Pence against 20 for Biden/Harris. Unfortunately, I saw the the grand total of zero (no joke) McSally posters, against a reasonable number for Kelly (certainly more than for Biden.) Now, I wouldn't read too much into this. We didn't see a lot of Tucson or Scottsdale or Phoenix. But it didn't seem like there was any enthusiasm for McSally. I'm going to go with Kelly handily outperforming Biden in Arizona, and a Democrat pickup.
51-49.
Now it gets much harder for the Democrats. I previously thought the Democrats had a chance against the unpopular Joni Ernst, but not so much anymore.
I think if Loefller and a Democrat go through to a January run-off in the Senate, then the Dems pick that up.
And the Dems have good, but outside shots in a bunch of states. My gut tells me 50-50 is the most likely position come the new Senate.
This is the question to which I've been struggling to get an answer.
I liked his recent book but does Andrew ever contribute anything useful?
He's Dominic Cummings with worse dress sense.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
OK, I know its only a verbal offer (as the estate agent isn't open this afternoon) but blimey! 48 hours? And we may see a bidding war next as well?
Go for an Octopus off-peak EV tariff, and it’s 5.5p per kilowatt-hour for five hours. At 7kW for your home charger, that’s 35 kwh (140 miles) for under two quid.
If you need to charge outside that time, it’s about 15p per kWh, so call it 6 quid for a full bottom to top charge in one night, or 2 quid per night for halfway to top
https://twitter.com/thebookseller/status/1306540903541010432?s=20
I'd agree Alabama is an almost certain Dem to GOP switch, Colorado a very likely switch the other way, and Maine less likely but still you'd guess 75% chance to go blue. Kelly is just a very strong candidate in Arizona and McSally an appointed incumbent who was rejected in 2018.
I'd say North Carolina is the Democrats' next best shot and will probably go with the Presidency - if Trump wins, it'll stay Republican, if Biden wins it won't. There are a few other outside Democrat shots that would go Democrat on a very good night for them.
Wildcard is Alaska - I can see that doing something odd even if Trump wins. It's the state most likely to split in a really dramatic way between President and Senate. One or two others could split, but only in the sense of 51/49 in the Presidential and 49/51 in the Senate election. Alaska could flip while going 60/40, or at least 55/45 for Trump (as it did in 2008 for McCain/Begich).
https://twitter.com/Matthew_Wright/status/1307289738362212352?s=20
It was like the trans-activist the other week that the Co-Op appeared to bend the knee to after the Co-Op advertised in the Spectator. When the higher ups took a look, all that the outrage had been caused by somebody with a few 100 twitter followers and they reversed the decision.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8750427/Ocado-warns-running-delivery-slots-second-lockdown-looms-Britain.html
https://twitter.com/pdanahar/status/1307331639337418752?s=20
Any one of those would leave most of us exhausted.
It is just as well he definitely HASN’T been chasing after and having an affair with a musician on the side; he would have no energy or attention left whatsoever to devote to his responsibilities.
I filled the car with petrol today. Only the second time since the beginning of March.
Anyway, I noticed that I was the only person using a disposable glove to avoid touching the pump and keypad.
This was in the virus hot spot of Keighley.
With regards to the Leave campaign.
That doesn't seem to do the USA any good but that's what happens when you have a country so dominated by lawyers.
Of course the best way of reducing the importance and political aspect of US judges would be to let the people decide on matters via their elected representatives.
Which in the case of abortion is what happens in the rest of the western world.