She's not going to get a by-election, though. Withdrawing the whip simply doesn't do that.
I am aware of that, but there is going to be pressure to go further.
They can't compel her to resign her seat, but they can publicly call for it.
Nippy probably has to, and hope she says no.
The Commons could start a recall process by suspending her could they? If a committee of standards recommends she be suspended for a fortnight and MPs vote for that then the recall process would be triggered wouldn't it?
Unbelievable arrogance from that SNP MP. By acting so selfishly, she he has potentially passed the infection on to a number of people and will have caused distress to many more. If she had any sense of honour she would resign. The SNP should clearly suspend her. What are the chances?
They have no choice.
She has put all mps and staff in the HOC at risk and all those on her train journey
If you get a positive result, return home whilst staying away from others as best you can is government advice, is it not?
Are you excusing her. Really
Not at all. Travelling with symptoms was truly dumb. Pitching up at work when you know you have symptoms is her serious offence.
I was commenting on her trip home.
It’s just that I was looking at the advice on gov.uk, after having filled in my passenger locator form from my hotel room in Germany yesterday, and the advice if you test for the virus wasn’t “go straight to the nearest hospital” but appeared to be “get yourself home staying away from others as best you can”.
I don't know what living arrangements she has in London, but she surely has somewhere she can rest her head.
That's the bit that makes no sense.
Why travel for six hours on a train, when you know you have the virus?
We know she stayed in London on the Monday night, so why not isolate herself there until she's no longer a risk?
Government advice is very clear that if you have symptoms you should go home and stay home.
On public transport?
And doesn't she have a home in London?
If she'd driven the journey would be fair enough. Its the public transport that is awful - plus the going into Parliament while knowing you personally have symptoms of course.
Perhaps she needed a eye test before she could drive?
Not on public transport.
Like Boris Johnson she doesn't understand the rules?
Unbelievable arrogance from that SNP MP. By acting so selfishly, she he has potentially passed the infection on to a number of people and will have caused distress to many more. If she had any sense of honour she would resign. The SNP should clearly suspend her. What are the chances?
They have no choice.
She has put all mps and staff in the HOC at risk and all those on her train journey
If you get a positive result, return home whilst staying away from others as best you can is government advice, is it not?
Are you excusing her. Really
Not at all. Travelling with symptoms was truly dumb. Pitching up at work when you know you have symptoms is her serious offence.
I was commenting on her trip home.
It’s just that I was looking at the advice on gov.uk, after having filled in my passenger locator form from my hotel room in Germany yesterday, and the advice if you test for the virus wasn’t “go straight to the nearest hospital” but appeared to be “get yourself home staying away from others as best you can”.
I don't know what living arrangements she has in London, but she surely has somewhere she can rest her head.
That's the bit that makes no sense.
Why travel for six hours on a train, when you know you have the virus?
We know she stayed in London on the Monday night, so why not isolate herself there until she's no longer a risk?
Government advice is very clear that if you have symptoms you should go home and stay home.
On public transport?
And doesn't she have a home in London?
If she'd driven the journey would be fair enough. Its the public transport that is awful - plus the going into Parliament while knowing you personally have symptoms of course.
Perhaps she needed a eye test before she could drive?
Not on public transport.
I'd have gone home rather than risk having one family member hospitalised in London and one in Scotland. By taxi.
Unbelievable arrogance from that SNP MP. By acting so selfishly, she he has potentially passed the infection on to a number of people and will have caused distress to many more. If she had any sense of honour she would resign. The SNP should clearly suspend her. What are the chances?
They have no choice.
She has put all mps and staff in the HOC at risk and all those on her train journey
If you get a positive result, return home whilst staying away from others as best you can is government advice, is it not?
Are you excusing her. Really
Not at all. Travelling with symptoms was truly dumb. Pitching up at work when you know you have symptoms is her serious offence.
I was commenting on her trip home.
It’s just that I was looking at the advice on gov.uk, after having filled in my passenger locator form from my hotel room in Germany yesterday, and the advice if you test for the virus wasn’t “go straight to the nearest hospital” but appeared to be “get yourself home staying away from others as best you can”.
I don't know what living arrangements she has in London, but she surely has somewhere she can rest her head.
That's the bit that makes no sense.
Why travel for six hours on a train, when you know you have the virus?
We know she stayed in London on the Monday night, so why not isolate herself there until she's no longer a risk?
Government advice is very clear that if you have symptoms you should go home and stay home.
On public transport?
And doesn't she have a home in London?
If she'd driven the journey would be fair enough. Its the public transport that is awful - plus the going into Parliament while knowing you personally have symptoms of course.
Perhaps she needed a eye test before she could drive?
Not on public transport.
At least she didn’t say she needed to get into training.
She's not going to get a by-election, though. Withdrawing the whip simply doesn't do that.
I am aware of that, but there is going to be pressure to go further.
They can't compel her to resign her seat, but they can publicly call for it.
Nippy probably has to, and hope she says no.
The Commons could start a recall process by suspending her could they? If a committee of standards recommends she be suspended for a fortnight and MPs vote for that then the recall process would be triggered wouldn't it?
They can only suspend an MP for breaching the rules of Parliament, or the Code of Conduct (which applies only to public and not private life). You could have some argument over whether the fact it was travel to London makes it public rather than private life - and arguably the Vaz case makes that easier.
It's not impossible, although it has no bearing on Sturgeon's decision - she could be suspended from the Commons or not regardless of whether she has the whip.
Anyhoo Margaret Ferrier deserves to be exiled to Middlesbrough or one of the remote Scottish islands for the rest of her life.
And what did the inhabitants of Middlesbrough and Benbecula do to deserve such a fate?
The people of Middlesbrough deserve it for being smoggies and the people of Benbecula* are used to hardship as they live in a remote part of the world, they are used to it.
Publisher accidentally prints thousands of copies of an early draft version of book called 'Word Perfect' by lexicographer Susie Dent, full of spelling and grammatical errors.
On topic, I do believe we should shift away from banning social interactions towards getting people to think about what interactions are important to them and cut out those that aren't. I would favour a campaign on the lines of:
Cherish the moments with the people that matter to you
In these strange times it's so important to share a moment with the people that matter to us. Maybe it's your parents, your grown up children, a neighbour, an old friend... Do do take the time to see them if you can do so safely. Cherish their company.
But please help stop the spread by cutting out unnecessary gatherings or with larger groups. No-one needs to go to a party.
Anyhoo Margaret Ferrier deserves to be exiled to Middlesbrough or one of the remote Scottish islands for the rest of her life.
And what did the inhabitants of Middlesbrough and Benbecula do to deserve such a fate?
The people of Middlesbrough deserve it for being smoggies and the people of Benbecula* are used to hardship as they live in a remote part of the world, they are used to it.
Anyhoo Margaret Ferrier deserves to be exiled to Middlesbrough or one of the remote Scottish islands for the rest of her life.
And what did the inhabitants of Middlesbrough and Benbecula do to deserve such a fate?
The people of Middlesbrough deserve it for being smoggies and the people of Benbecula* are used to hardship as they live in a remote part of the world, they are used to it.
ITV commenting on Margaret Ferrier SNP MP said it was shocking and extraordinary that she traveled to Westminster with symptoms and then unbelievable travelled back to Scotland on the train having had a positive test
They said there will be serious repercussions in Parliament and the SNP tonight
And to be fair, this is worse than Cummings idiotic escapade
Like Cummings this is volume turned up to eleven serious.
Nippy has to do to Ferrier what she did to Calderwood.
But not what BJ did to Dom presumably.
The SNP haven't been slow in suspending other elected members for lesser offences so they should get it done now (as many SNP supporters are saying on twitter).
That is fair enough. I agree with your comment re: Cummings. I find it tiresome how some of the more excitable Tories on here seem to think Ms. Ferrier's action makes what Cummings did OK.
Please do not include me in that comment
Cummings should have gone and I have said that ever since the breach
But this breach is beyond believable
I want to know her thought process. It might prove valuable to understand the mentality of others, who have done or will do similar things.
- She had a positive test. - At that point I would be trying to work out how not meet anyone for 10-14 days. - Definitely cancel anything like an appointment/meeting - Probably text spamming anyone I'd met in the last week or 2...
Yes I desperatly want to know her thought process
I am not being sarcastic - understanding is the first step to fix a problem.
We have a problem with people being selfish about COVID risks. Find out why.....
Absolutely. Like you I simply don't under stand how she ended up making the decisions she did.
If this was a person on the poverty line who couldn't eat if they didn't work I would understand it, but not an MP.
The icing on the cake would be if she was one of Corbyn's dinner guests.
If MPs want to break the rules they should remember the rules about not being found out. If you feel ill and want to travel by train, don't have a test beforehand, don't say to anyone that you have started on symptoms until after the journey is over, and if possible just say nothing to anyone. MPs have stopped understanding the value of shutting up.
On another topic: Is it possible that the EU Commission in sending the letter about the 'illegal' Bill but not breaking off talks is actually saying that a deal is essential to them, as it (obviously) is to us? Therefore, whatever the huffing and puffing there will be a deal.
Unbelievable arrogance from that SNP MP. By acting so selfishly, she he has potentially passed the infection on to a number of people and will have caused distress to many more. If she had any sense of honour she would resign. The SNP should clearly suspend her. What are the chances?
They have no choice.
She has put all mps and staff in the HOC at risk and all those on her train journey
If you get a positive result, return home whilst staying away from others as best you can is government advice, is it not?
Are you excusing her. Really
Not at all. Travelling with symptoms was truly dumb. Pitching up at work when you know you have symptoms is her serious offence.
I was commenting on her trip home.
It’s just that I was looking at the advice on gov.uk, after having filled in my passenger locator form from my hotel room in Germany yesterday, and the advice if you test for the virus wasn’t “go straight to the nearest hospital” but appeared to be “get yourself home staying away from others as best you can”.
I don't know what living arrangements she has in London, but she surely has somewhere she can rest her head.
That's the bit that makes no sense.
Why travel for six hours on a train, when you know you have the virus?
We know she stayed in London on the Monday night, so why not isolate herself there until she's no longer a risk?
Government advice is very clear that if you have symptoms you should go home and stay home.
On public transport?
And doesn't she have a home in London?
If she'd driven the journey would be fair enough. Its the public transport that is awful - plus the going into Parliament while knowing you personally have symptoms of course.
Perhaps she needed a eye test before she could drive?
Not on public transport.
Maybe she failed the eye test and thought it was a car.
ITV commenting on Margaret Ferrier SNP MP said it was shocking and extraordinary that she traveled to Westminster with symptoms and then unbelievable travelled back to Scotland on the train having had a positive test
They said there will be serious repercussions in Parliament and the SNP tonight
And to be fair, this is worse than Cummings idiotic escapade
Like Cummings this is volume turned up to eleven serious.
Nippy has to do to Ferrier what she did to Calderwood.
But not what BJ did to Dom presumably.
The SNP haven't been slow in suspending other elected members for lesser offences so they should get it done now (as many SNP supporters are saying on twitter).
That is fair enough. I agree with your comment re: Cummings. I find it tiresome how some of the more excitable Tories on here seem to think Ms. Ferrier's action makes what Cummings did OK.
Please do not include me in that comment
Cummings should have gone and I have said that ever since the breach
But this breach is beyond believable
I want to know her thought process. It might prove valuable to understand the mentality of others, who have done or will do similar things.
- She had a positive test. - At that point I would be trying to work out how not meet anyone for 10-14 days. - Definitely cancel anything like an appointment/meeting - Probably text spamming anyone I'd met in the last week or 2...
Yes I desperatly want to know her thought process
I am not being sarcastic - understanding is the first step to fix a problem.
We have a problem with people being selfish about COVID risks. Find out why.....
Absolutely. Like you I simply don't under stand how she ended up making the decisions she did.
If this was a person on the poverty line who couldn't eat if they didn't work I would understand it, but not an MP.
The icing on the cake would be if she was one of Corbyn's dinner guests.
Along with Stanley Johnson, who'd turned up brandishing a bottle of Lambrini he'd just purchased at the corner shop.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
The astonishing thing about that poll is that Starmer is going precisely nowhere.
The government is not fit for purpose. And neither is the opposition.
There is a massive swathe of support waiting for somebody to scoop it up.
And the redundancies haven't really started yet.
Keir Starmer thinks the government is so great they should have another six months of Ministerial ability to create laws without going to Parliament for approval.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
Ferrier gone in a day, Cummings still there. Therein lies the difference
Ferrier has been suspended, Cummings is hanging on?
She's lost the party whip, but is still an MP drawing her salary and allowances.
Cummings nor Johnson even had the decency to apologise
Did either of them go into Parliament with symptoms?
Did either of them take a train following a positive test?
Cummings returned to Downing Street, his place of work, when he was supposed to be isolating.
Which arguably was much more serious - notwithstanding comments upthread - because there wasn’t the regime for maintaining distance in place that’s been put into Parliament.
If MPs want to break the rules they should remember the rules about not being found out. If you feel ill and want to travel by train, don't have a test beforehand, don't say to anyone that you have started on symptoms until after the journey is over, and if possible just say nothing to anyone. MPs have stopped understanding the value of shutting up.
On another topic: Is it possible that the EU Commission in sending the letter about the 'illegal' Bill but not breaking off talks is actually saying that a deal is essential to them, as it (obviously) is to us? Therefore, whatever the huffing and puffing there will be a deal.
Isn't the problem that Ferrier had symptoms, had a test, but then the symptoms disappeared so she presumably thought it was a false alarm and she'd just had a cold? That may be where the public education messages are needed.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
A vaccine and a successful Brexit could lead to another GE win for this PM too. Though if its not this PM, I have 5000 reasons to want it to be his Chancellor instead.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Needless to say, an awful lot can happen between now and 2024. Though FWIW Starmer wouldn't, presumably, relish being PM if this also means having to be propped up by the SNP. The only way he'd be able to get anything done at all in England would be by using Scottish separatist votes to do it. This would not necessarily be advantageous to the long-term health of his party.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
A vaccine and a successful Brexit could lead to another GE win for this PM too. Though if its not this PM, I have 5000 reasons to want it to be his Chancellor instead.
Blimey. Sounds like you somewhat overdid EOTHO it it made you five grand.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
I don't think so. By next summer, some NHS waiting lists will be hitting 2 years. That's not what Leavers voted for.
The astonishing thing about that poll is that Starmer is going precisely nowhere.
The government is not fit for purpose. And neither is the opposition.
There is a massive swathe of support waiting for somebody to scoop it up.
And the redundancies haven't really started yet.
Keir Starmer thinks the government is so great they should have another six months of Ministerial ability to create laws without going to Parliament for approval.
Its funny. Philip Davies MP was much more hostile to Hancock than most Labour MPs in the commons tonight. Brutal.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
I don't think so. By next summer, some NHS waiting lists will be hitting 2 years. That's not what Leavers voted for.
Extenuating circumstances for the waiting lists though.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
Absolutely agree. However, an alternative view is that the stench of decay that permeates this government, after less than a year, is terminal. Even if the holy trinity of vaccine, economic boom and new leader come to pass, it wouldn't be before 2022 I'd guess. By then, I suspect too many bridges will have been burnt for a successful leader to emerge from the ashes.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
I don't think so. By next summer, some NHS waiting lists will be hitting 2 years. That's not what Leavers voted for.
Extenuating circumstances for the waiting lists though.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
Absolutely agree. However, an alternative view is that the stench of decay that permeates this government, after less than a year, is terminal. Even if the holy trinity of vaccine, economic boom and new leader come to pass, it wouldn't be before 2022 I'd guess. By then, I suspect too many bridges will have been burnt for a successful leader to emerge from the ashes.
I'm of the view that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them and boy has this government gone out of its way to lose the next election.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It was a Democratic stronghold in the days when the Dems were racist gun nuts pining for the Confedaracy.
Now those have shifted to the Republicans (ironic, given it was a Republican government crushed the Confedaracy) Texas will be safely Republican until either African Americans and Hispanics are a majority, or the Republicans do something totally crazy like elect a senile lunatic with bad hair as their...ah.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
It might actually make the Electoral College position worse for the Democrats. In efficiency terms, a state where a "par" performance is a 7% win is better than one where the par performance is a 15% win.
Okay, so in elections where you lose the national popular vote by 8%, you lose that state. But who cares? You've lost the election anyway.
States that are tantalisingly out of reach in close elections are the best kind in terms of electoral vote advantage.
It's only if we get to the point (which we may) where Texas might go Democrat in a close election that it becomes a problem for the GOP (although of course they have other worries like it electing Democrat Senators, which would be annoying for them).
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
Nah, all those states are going to Biden too.
In this election, perhaps, but in terms of whether the Electoral College is biased one way or another what matters is which side would win the state with equal national popular votes.
I'm sure the CNBC/Change Research poll has got plenty of attention on here. Biden leads 54-41.
The poll is 925 Likely voters with an MoE of 3.22%.
To be fair, they are a C- pollster according to Fivethirtyeight (the same ranking as Trafalgar) with an in-built Democrat bias of 1.1 so one bucket of salt, please, waiter.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Still a long way to go, a successful vaccine rollout between now and 2024, leading to a booming economy, and a new Tory leader means the next GE may well still be up for grabs.
Absolutely agree. However, an alternative view is that the stench of decay that permeates this government, after less than a year, is terminal. Even if the holy trinity of vaccine, economic boom and new leader come to pass, it wouldn't be before 2022 I'd guess. By then, I suspect too many bridges will have been burnt for a successful leader to emerge from the ashes.
I'm of the view that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them and boy has this government gone out of its way to lose the next election.
I think we're agreeing, and I think Starmer does too. Hence his stance: bide your time, be seen as a safe pair of hands and PM material, don't scare the horses with policies yet, let the government fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions. This has happened often in the past, and the double whammy of Covid and Brexit effects makes this government more susceptible to disintegration than any other postwar government (in my opinion).
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It was a Democratic stronghold in the days when the Dems were racist gun nuts pining for the Confedaracy.
Now those have shifted to the Republicans (ironic, given it was a Republican government crushed the Confedaracy) Texas will be safely Republican until either African Americans and Hispanics are a majority, or the Republicans do something totally crazy like elect a senile lunatic with bad hair as their...ah.
Over the last decade, Texas has been the fastest growing state by population, and 90% of the growth is Hispanics, who break at least 2:1 Democrat.
As for the Democrats helping themselves in the Senate I maintain that if they win the Senate and the White House this year the first thing they should work on next year is Statehood for New Columbia (aka DC) and Puerto Rico.
I'm sure the CNBC/Change Research poll has got plenty of attention on here. Biden leads 54-41.
The poll is 925 Likely voters with an MoE of 3.22%.
To be fair, they are a C- pollster according to Fivethirtyeight (the same ranking as Trafalgar) with an in-built Democrat bias of 1.1 so one bucket of salt, please, waiter.
With that MoE it could as easily be 57/38 as 51/44 😛
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It was a Democratic stronghold in the days when the Dems were racist gun nuts pining for the Confedaracy.
Now those have shifted to the Republicans (ironic, given it was a Republican government crushed the Confedaracy) Texas will be safely Republican until either African Americans and Hispanics are a majority, or the Republicans do something totally crazy like elect a senile lunatic with bad hair as their...ah.
Over the last decade, Texas has been the fastest growing state by population, and 90% of the growth is Hispanics, who break at least 2:1 Democrat.
Yes. Which is why it will flip again eventually.
I would be surprised if it was this time, or at least I would have been astonished until a few days ago. I don’t think Trump’s tax affairs will play well there. But equally, if he doesn’t hold TSE will be on about dockaide hookers again.
Watching the Tottenham match, the only way defenders can prevent penalties under the new handball rules is to chop off their own arms.
The rules are fine, its an absurd interpretation of what an "unnatural position" for the arms that is the issue.
Holding your arms behind your back is unnatural, having them by your side is not.
I agree with dropping the intention aspect of the handball rule, as requires mindreading. Better to decide on whether the defender gained an advantage by the handball.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It would be nice for Labour to win back Grimsby, never mind Scotland. A Tory MP in Grimsby? FFS
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It would be nice for Labour to win back Grimsby, never mind Scotland. A Tory MP in Grimsby? FFS
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
It used to be a Democrat stronghold, would be nice for them to win it back, a bit like Labour if they become the majority party in Scotland again.
It was a Democratic stronghold in the days when the Dems were racist gun nuts pining for the Confedaracy.
It is well known that the South was Democrat, but it's often forgotten just how Democrat. It's not like it flipped from 55-45 one way to 45-55 the other... Roosevelt twice picked up over 98% (yes, 98%) of the vote in South Carolina and Texas was getting on for 90% Democrat. His period was the peak of it, but even losing Democrat presidential candidates were racking up ridiculous margins.
To put South Carolina in Roosevelt's time in context, it's like Labour in Bootle in a landslide year, where the Tory candidate had been caught having sex with a labrador on the High Street just before polling day, and everyone else had failed to fill in their nomination form correctly. And then some.
If I was looking at a long-shot state to flip to Biden I'd choose Louisiana. The last polling in early September had Trump up by six but that was from a state he won by twenty last time. Not worth your mortgage but a couple of quid at what I'm sure would be a big price.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
Yeah, but Biden is well ahead in the polls in those 4 Midwest states. It is not a game of swapsies, but of related contingencies. A good national performance in the PV leverages the EV in Bidens direction too.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
But there's no sign of a direct Mid-West v Texas swing. In fact this time we're seeing a greater than Uniform National Swing to the Democrats in both the Mid-West and Texas are we not?
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
If I was looking at a long-shot state to flip to Biden I'd choose Louisiana. The last polling in early September had Trump up by six but that was from a state he won by twenty last time. Not worth your mortgage but a couple of quid at what I'm sure would be a big price.
Arkansas too. It hasn't been polled since June, and was 45 Biden Trump 47, and if anything the movement in the polls has been in Bidens direction too.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
Yeah, but Biden is well ahead in the polls in those 4 Midwest states. It is not a game of swapsies, but of related contingencies. A good national performance in the PV leverages the EV in Bidens direction too.
Trump may hold Florida though, IMO.
In terms of any bias in the Electoral College it is a case of swapsies. Whether Biden wins a landslide this time has no bearing on that.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
It might actually make the Electoral College position worse for the Democrats. In efficiency terms, a state where a "par" performance is a 7% win is better than one where the par performance is a 15% win.
Okay, so in elections where you lose the national popular vote by 8%, you lose that state. But who cares? You've lost the election anyway.
States that are tantalisingly out of reach in close elections are the best kind in terms of electoral vote advantage.
It's only if we get to the point (which we may) where Texas might go Democrat in a close election that it becomes a problem for the GOP (although of course they have other worries like it electing Democrat Senators, which would be annoying for them).
The point is that Texas has been trending to the Democrats for a decade now. The delta between the Texas margin and the national margin has been shrinking for a long time.
2000 it was ~23% (albeit Texas was Bush's home state) 2004 it was ~21% 2008 it was ~19% 2012 it was ~20% 2016 it was ~11% Currently its polling about ~8%
Its shrank by more than half in a decade. If it continues at this rate by 2024 or 2028 it will be a genuinely tight swing state at a tight national election.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
But there's no sign of a direct Mid-West v Texas swing. In fact this time we're seeing a greater than Uniform National Swing to the Democrats in both the Mid-West and Texas are we not?
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
My assumption is that Biden is outperforming the long-term trend in the Mid-West.
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
But there's no sign of a direct Mid-West v Texas swing. In fact this time we're seeing a greater than Uniform National Swing to the Democrats in both the Mid-West and Texas are we not?
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
My assumption is that Biden is outperforming the long-term trend in the Mid-West.
Perhaps. Though if Biden wins then the Democrats would be smart to learn lessons and ensure future nominees target the midwest and other swing states more than the coasts.
Comments
That kind of stupidity/arrogance is disgusting, it is like having AIDS and having unprotected sex and not telling your partners that you have AIDS.
Yes, it's a wasted £2 but I want the £2k for other things in October.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1311748550125146112
https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1311718569189806089?s=19
Did either of them take a train following a positive test?
https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/1311749800434569216
It's not impossible, although it has no bearing on Sturgeon's decision - she could be suspended from the Commons or not regardless of whether she has the whip.
If so, the answer to question 1 is yes.
*If it is the island I think it is.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1311705404737490945
Oh.
Publisher accidentally prints thousands of copies of an early draft version of book called 'Word Perfect' by lexicographer Susie Dent, full of spelling and grammatical errors.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/01/countdowns-susie-dent-sick-discovering-word-perfect-book-riddled/
The publisher won't be smiling though, they're having to reprint them with the correct version, and sent out replacements to everyone who's bought it.
Everyone else is rushing out to try and find the 'wrong' version, because that's the one that will be worth a few quid on eBay in a decade's time!
Cherish the moments with the people that matter to you
In these strange times it's so important to share a moment with the people that matter to us. Maybe it's your parents, your grown up children, a neighbour, an old friend... Do do take the time to see them if you can do so safely. Cherish their company.
But please help stop the spread by cutting out unnecessary gatherings or with larger groups. No-one needs to go to a party.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
The government is not fit for purpose. And neither is the opposition.
There is a massive swathe of support waiting for somebody to scoop it up.
And the redundancies haven't really started yet.
Alaska at 11/2 still worth a look I think.
If MPs want to break the rules they should remember the rules about not being found out. If you feel ill and want to travel by train, don't have a test beforehand, don't say to anyone that you have started on symptoms until after the journey is over, and if possible just say nothing to anyone. MPs have stopped understanding the value of shutting up.
On another topic: Is it possible that the EU Commission in sending the letter about the 'illegal' Bill but not breaking off talks is actually saying that a deal is essential to them, as it (obviously) is to us? Therefore, whatever the huffing and puffing there will be a deal.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
I note Spreadex have shifted their Trump EV market down again, now 224-232.
I am not topping up though as pretty comfortable with my position.
The world is going to change multiple times by 2024. A poll now is about as useful and relevant as a long term weather forecast in November 1939
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
The NHS is political catnip.
Now those have shifted to the Republicans (ironic, given it was a Republican government crushed the Confedaracy) Texas will be safely Republican until either African Americans and Hispanics are a majority, or the Republicans do something totally crazy like elect a senile lunatic with bad hair as their...ah.
Okay, so in elections where you lose the national popular vote by 8%, you lose that state. But who cares? You've lost the election anyway.
States that are tantalisingly out of reach in close elections are the best kind in terms of electoral vote advantage.
It's only if we get to the point (which we may) where Texas might go Democrat in a close election that it becomes a problem for the GOP (although of course they have other worries like it electing Democrat Senators, which would be annoying for them).
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
I'm sure the CNBC/Change Research poll has got plenty of attention on here. Biden leads 54-41.
The poll is 925 Likely voters with an MoE of 3.22%.
To be fair, they are a C- pollster according to Fivethirtyeight (the same ranking as Trafalgar) with an in-built Democrat bias of 1.1 so one bucket of salt, please, waiter.
Holding your arms behind your back is unnatural, having them by your side is not.
I would be surprised if it was this time, or at least I would have been astonished until a few days ago. I don’t think Trump’s tax affairs will play well there. But equally, if he doesn’t hold TSE will be on about dockaide hookers again.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
To put South Carolina in Roosevelt's time in context, it's like Labour in Bootle in a landslide year, where the Tory candidate had been caught having sex with a labrador on the High Street just before polling day, and everyone else had failed to fill in their nomination form correctly. And then some.
Ditto South Carolina - I'm not convinced but the odd poll puts the state very much in play.
Polling in Iowa looks very tight as well though a poll last week put Trump back in the lead by three and five with leaners:
https://filesforprogress.org/memos/2020-senate-project/week-2/dfp_psp_IA_Senate_week2.pdf
If I was looking at a long-shot state to flip to Biden I'd choose Louisiana. The last polling in early September had Trump up by six but that was from a state he won by twenty last time. Not worth your mortgage but a couple of quid at what I'm sure would be a big price.
Trump may hold Florida though, IMO.
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
Biden 12 on BFx at present.
See, for example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index
2000 it was ~23% (albeit Texas was Bush's home state)
2004 it was ~21%
2008 it was ~19%
2012 it was ~20%
2016 it was ~11%
Currently its polling about ~8%
Its shrank by more than half in a decade. If it continues at this rate by 2024 or 2028 it will be a genuinely tight swing state at a tight national election.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1311764583544168450
It seemed to spook one of the neighbours' cats!