The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
I don't believe you. You're a Pollyanna for Trump.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
Oh, I believe he’d personally prefer to vote for Biden, but he has decided that a Trump win would be better for the Tories (Brexit, Ireland, GFA).
Somewhere between motivated reasoning (the option I want is the one I must rationalise will be true) and sympathetic magic (if I believe it hard enough it becomes true) lies HYUFD.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
I don't believe you. You're a Pollyanna for Trump.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
No I am not, I was quite clear in 2016 I would have voted for Hillary and expected Hillary to win, however she did not and I am reluctant to make the same mistake again. You are the one who voted for Trump's chief UK cheerleader last year, Farage and the Brexit Party in the European elections, I still voted Tory.
As I said before Nevada is irrelevant, Hillary won it anyway, it was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida which cost her the election and Trafalgar was the only pollster to call all those right. Not a single pollster got Wisconsin right (though Trafalgar did not poll it)
Last year I didn't vote for Farage, I voted for Brexit, for there to be no MEPs at all and for Farage to be gone from Parliament because we'd have gone. And to get rid of May because she was a disaster. I still dislike Farage as I always have done, I do not want Farage to be an MEP and he is not thanks to the votes like mine.
Nevada is not irrelevant, it is entirely relevant to what a bad pollster Trafalgar is. Trafalgar said that Trump would win it. Trafalgar said it wouldn't even be that close, he'd win it by 5%.
They were wrong. Not just wrong winner, they were staggeringly, outside of the margin of error wrong.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
It's easy sometimes to forget how small most countries are until you suddenly remember the UK is the 20th/21st most populous country on Earth. Though there's some others I did not realise were so large, like Tanzania, Algeria, even Canada.
I see @HYFUD is getting bullied as a possible Trumpster. He’s not, he’s being very clear that he would not have voted for him in 2016 and 2020. There is no reason why he shouldn’t be believed.
Those criticising him for posting Trafalgar and Rasmussen Polls should remember that there are plenty of people willing to post pro-Biden polls, this site needs some of the opposite.
And also, a message to those bang on about Trump but who yet vote Tory. The Corbynistas see you in exactly the same way as you view Trump, namely racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. So, the next time you bang on about how the Corbynistas are deranged because of some of the language they use about Conservatives, in some ways you are exactly two sides of the same coin.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
Fraid so. We are all up shit creek again.
Shit creek probably doesn't sound as bad in French.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
Fraid so. We are all up shit creek again.
Are we? We certainly have a lot of cases. But how's admissions in Leicester this week?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
The bad blood goes back a very long way, quite possibly to Kennedy. It's one of those feuds so old the original cause has probably been forgotten by the current protagonists.
It certainly did not just start with Garland Merrick.
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected.
That's why Democrats didn't turn out in droves. It's how Trump won Wisconsin with fewer votes than Romney got.
And it's why I suspect that Trump loses this year. Because Trump winning is very real now.
Very like Corbyn 2017 vs 2019.
Except Trump won in 2016, Corbyn lost even in 2017.
Corbyn had to make gains in 2019 to win, he ended up losing votes, Trump just needs to hold his 2016 vote (with maybe a few extra Black and Hispanic votes) and hope Biden does not pick up enough third party 2016 votes
You are one of a very few Trump cheerleaders on here and you are going to see him wiped out in November
And good riddance
No, I am not, I would vote for Biden in November (but Republican for Congress) as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016, I believe only MrEd on here and AveIt are Trump supporters
I don't believe you. You're a Pollyanna for Trump.
Did you get around to considering why Trafalgar gave Trump a 5% lead in Nevada? A state he lost by 2.4%.
No doubt you'll continue to consider them the gold standard and only one that matter because you will just blindly ignore all their flaws and failures and concentrate only on the states they fluked right.
No I am not, I was quite clear in 2016 I would have voted for Hillary and expected Hillary to win, however she did not and I am reluctant to make the same mistake again. You are the one who voted for Trump's chief UK cheerleader last year, Farage and the Brexit Party in the European elections, I still voted Tory.
As I said before Nevada is irrelevant, Hillary won it anyway, it was Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida which cost her the election and Trafalgar was the only pollster to call all those right. Not a single pollster got Wisconsin right (though Trafalgar did not poll it)
Last year I didn't vote for Farage, I voted for Brexit, for there to be no MEPs at all and for Farage to be gone from Parliament because we'd have gone. And to get rid of May because she was a disaster. I still dislike Farage as I always have done, I do not want Farage to be an MEP and he is not thanks to the votes like mine.
Nevada is not irrelevant, it is entirely relevant to what a bad pollster Trafalgar is. Trafalgar said that Trump would win it. Trafalgar said it wouldn't even be that close, he'd win it by 5%.
They were wrong. Not just wrong winner, they were staggeringly, outside of the margin of error wrong.
You voted for the party led by Farage, I have never ever voted for UKIP or the Brexit Party and they are the UK equivalent of Trump's core support.
In terms of calling the EC right Trafalgar were the only pollster to have Trump winning it, Nevada was just a consolation prize for Hillary
I see @HYFUD is getting bullied as a possible Trumpster. He’s not, he’s being very clear that he would not have voted for him in 2016 and 2020. There is no reason why he shouldn’t be believed.
Those criticising him for posting Trafalgar and Rasmussen Polls should remember that there are plenty of people willing to post pro-Biden polls, this site needs some of the opposite.
And also, a message to those bang on about Trump but who yet vote Tory. The Corbynistas see you in exactly the same way as you view Trump, namely racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. So, the next time you bang on about how the Corbynistas are deranged because of some of the language they use about Conservatives, in some ways you are exactly two sides of the same coin.
The point may be valid (though people may well retort that there is an objective, qualitative difference between the two sides which means even if such a comparison is made, it is not as direct as that) but I doubt HYUFD, who is made of stern stuff, would suggest several people disagreeing with him, even questioning his motives, as bullying.
I see @HYFUD is getting bullied as a possible Trumpster. He’s not, he’s being very clear that he would not have voted for him in 2016 and 2020. There is no reason why he shouldn’t be believed.
Those criticising him for posting Trafalgar and Rasmussen Polls should remember that there are plenty of people willing to post pro-Biden polls, this site needs some of the opposite.
And also, a message to those bang on about Trump but who yet vote Tory. The Corbynistas see you in exactly the same way as you view Trump, namely racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. So, the next time you bang on about how the Corbynistas are deranged because of some of the language they use about Conservatives, in some ways you are exactly two sides of the same coin.
The difference is that if the Tories are led by someone who is actually racist etc then I would not support them. I quit the party when Theresa May became leader because I dislike her and consider her to be a nasty, authoritarian xenophobe.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
Fraid so. We are all up shit creek again.
Are we? We certainly have a lot of cases. But how's admissions in Leicester this week?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
The bad blood goes back a very long way, quite possibly to Kennedy. It's one of those feuds so old the original cause has probably been forgotten by the current protagonists.
It certainly did not just start with Garland Merrick.
It’s more the Robert Bork case that was the real starter for this. Before then, SC appointments were relatively bi-partisan (apart from FDR’s attempts to expand the court)
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
The bad blood goes back a very long way, quite possibly to Kennedy. It's one of those feuds so old the original cause has probably been forgotten by the current protagonists.
It certainly did not just start with Garland Merrick.
Oh indeed but its gotten much worse from then on. The shenanigans the GOP pulled in recent years are to my knowledge unprecedented.
Whereas court packing absolutely is precedented. The court numbers used to vary a lot more than they have in the past century.
Do people just oppose things for the sake of it? It's not like these things are actual debates, who gives a shit if there's a honking piece of plexiglass in the way?
I know the point will have been made, but you (and the memesters) presumably know France are doing barely better than the UK? There must be a shot of Merkel laughing with someone else to better make the point, but I assume it has less Brexity overtones?
France 495 deaths per million; UK 623 deaths per million. So the UK is doing 25% worse.
France is in as much a crisis as UK, Ireland and many other countries
Fraid so. We are all up shit creek again.
Are we? We certainly have a lot of cases. But how's admissions in Leicester this week?
The thing which I can't get my head round is, if Trump is in so much trouble, why it is not being picked up more in tales from within his political campaign. No one wants to be associated with a loser. We have also had various stories about GOP Senators such as McNally, Tillis, Collins and Graham being in trouble, suggesting Republican sources are happy to talk to the press, but - outside those in the Republican party who don't like Trump - few who are saying that Trump's campaign is floundering.
If anything, where Trump was visiting before his illness, suggested he was thinking of expanding the map, including places such as MN, NV and NH. We have also had stories from within the Democratic camp suggesting they are having trouble motivating voters in Wisconsin and Latinos in Florida.
Now that may be classic bullsh1tting and projecting strength from Trump and it may be the polls are absolutely spot on (the ones with the big Biden leads) but it feels odd.
Let's try it the other way - the ghost of 2016 still stalks the political land.
There are, I suspect, many who are secretly terrified that somehow, despite the majority of polls showing otherwise, Trump and his supporters will conjure victory from the jaws of defeat and those who win have long memories and won't forget those who were defeatist.
There is a clear passion and enthusiasm among Trump's supporters - that is evident. He is almost worshipped by his supporters but there were those who backed Walter Mondale in 1984 or the Conservatives in 1997 and believed in them but that didn't stop them being trounced. Sometimes, it's the most faithful who are the most blind. Yes, Trump evokes that in his supporters - the problem is there aren't as many as there were.
Among Democrats there can be no complacency, no confidence in success. Just as there were those Labour activists who simply could not believe how well they were doing in 1997, there are doubtless Democrats who see every nuance of a wobble in Wisconsin or hesitation among Hispanics and magnify those into election-losing and remember the defeat of 2016 and cannot bring themselves to believe in victory. It's all about caution ,fighting for every vote in the battleground states.
Biden doesn't elicit the same enthusiasm as Trump but he doesn't need to - he just needs people to vote for him or against Trump - in the end, it won't matter.
Sometimes, the polls are right - it's just those reading them who are wrong.
I agree totally with that, and it all makes sense. But sometimes it is actually the data that is wrong.
I remembered reading "Shattered" about the Hillary Clinton campaign and how it completely messed up the situation. It's worth looking at the NYT review on Amazon of the book: " It's the story of a wildly dysfunctional and 'spirit-crushing' campaign that embraced a flawed strategy (based on flawed data) that failed, repeatedly, to correct course". I actually feel like the Biden campaign know things are tighter than they appear (there doesn't really feel to be too much of a push to places like Georgia and Texas, which you think they would do if they thought they were in with a chance) so it is not making the mistakes of Clinton there but the point re the quality of the data remains the same.
We all focus on here about whether the polls were right in 2016 or not, and which ones are the Gold Standard but what I think has been forgotten is that, in 2016, nobody could even imagine Trump was going to be elected. That is why you could get 6/1 on him on the day. If the polls were so accurate back then as everyone seems to think now, and the lead between Trump and Clinton they were showing was supposedly so narrow, why was he at such odds? There was no reason he should have been, especially in a two-horse race and where the Democrats were looking to win the Presidency three times on the trot. He was 6/1 because nobody believed he had a chance and also because we were all assured that Clinton's campaign was so great, efficient, organised and so on. It was only when everyone looked under the bonnet afterwards and realised how bad things were.
I get the same feeling with Biden's campaign. Maybe it's my bias that makes me feel that way and, for that reason alone, I would bet heavily one way or the other. But it has that same leaden feel to it. Uninspiring candidate (and VP candidate); reliance on dislike of his opponent; no real policies people can remember or relate to; and a reliance on a "virtual" campaigning strategy which seems to be ringing alarm bells amongst some operatives and which they are now changing.
BUT... the dislike for Trump is at least as angry and passionate as the support for him used to be. So, while I think that the Biden campaign are totally correct to focus on just getting to victory, I think there is certainly a potential for a serious of "Portillo moments", for example, losing both McConnell and Graham and maybe even Texas. The Dems are very motivated indeed and the is plenty of evidence that they are coming out to vote.
The fact is that a large number of rock ribbed Republicans also won't have Trump at any price - and the Lincoln Project is having an effect. People are just tired of the constant shit show in the White House, so while I think people are right to be emotionally scared, the numbers and the mood music points far more to a Biden-Harris landslide than to another EC screw up that lets the Fake 45 back into the White House.
I’d agree a lot of people hate Trump and that will be motivating. That’s why you have seen those queues in the likes of Myrtle Beach.
But hate can only get you a certain percent of the population, despite what it seems like on Twitter. Most people want what is best for them, not to live in a perpetual version of the two minute hate.
It’s why I think Clinton’s - and Biden’s - strategies were flawed. They relied on dislike on the other side. Sure, Biden has announced some big plans but it’s clear he is doing it to quieten the more left wing members (who, in a Biden win, I suspect would be chucked to the walls).
Who knows?
I hope so
His refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
The bad blood goes back a very long way, quite possibly to Kennedy. It's one of those feuds so old the original cause has probably been forgotten by the current protagonists.
It certainly did not just start with Garland Merrick.
I'm sure the american institutions and constitution, which are a tough set of things, can get through all this, but it does feel dangerously like the movement of decades could culminate in a moment when the sides no longer respect each other enough to protect those institutions and constitution. It won't, but it doesn't feel completely ridiculous. When sides hate each other, genuinely hate each other, and think only winning matters because the other lot are morally degenerate, it feels like anything can happen even from sides we agree with on policy.
If we are lucky and students don't manage to spread the virus much beyond the groves of academia, then this autumn blip could be over by end of the month.
Well I presume that's only in relation to a Covid-19 vaccine, but still troubling since no doubt the reason is the issue has been politicised. Even with the whole 'vaccines cause autism' hullaballo I'm not sure at what point person freedom fetishists turned against vaccination.
298 years ago at the latest. "For example, in a 1722 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"."
Vaccines are tricky and frightening things, not least because they are a branch of homeopathy. You'd have hoped that 3 centuries of evidence would be persuasive, but obviously not enough.
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
I am probably one of the biggest Biden bulls on here.
It is largely Biden giving the Democrats a chance of winning enough rustbelt swing states to win the electoral college
Sanders might have beaten Trump in 2016. He certainly would have been the candidate against which Trump found it hard to position his message. It would have been different in 2020 I think, some of the Bernie magic had gone
Well I presume that's only in relation to a Covid-19 vaccine, but still troubling since no doubt the reason is the issue has been politicised. Even with the whole 'vaccines cause autism' hullaballo I'm not sure at what point person freedom fetishists turned against vaccination.
298 years ago at the latest. "For example, in a 1722 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation"."
Vaccines are tricky and frightening things, not least because they are a branch of homeopathy. You'd have hoped that 3 centuries of evidence would be persuasive, but obviously not enough.
Well they obviously persuaded enough at some point during the centuries, but as we often reflect, progress can be reversed!
Though the good Reverend's point is the opposite of the 'My body, my right' kind of objection in fairness. More 'My body, but it's a rental from God, so no needles please'.
It's easy sometimes to forget how small most countries are until you suddenly remember the UK is the 20th/21st most populous country on Earth. Though there's some others I did not realise were so large, like Tanzania, Algeria, even Canada.
You didn't realise Canada was so large? Or had such a population?
Most people will look forward to a Biden presidency no doubt, but for some reason, despite people like Sanders urging his backers to support him, I still pick up the presidency that there are plenty on the american left not pleased Biden ended up getting it (not necessarily in place of Sanders, just that it was Biden), and so it could be quite amusing to see if they given Biden a really hard time once he is in office and has tackled some of the bigger Trump issues (I do think they will turn out for him though). Might be my imagination, but I get the impression John Oliver and like minded individuals are not super keen.
I am probably one of the biggest Biden bulls on here.
It is largely Biden giving the Democrats a chance of winning enough rustbelt swing states to win the electoral college
Sanders might have beaten Trump in 2016. He certainly would have been the candidate against which Trump found it hard to position his message. It would have been different in 2020 I think, some of the Bernie magic had gone
Sanders would have likely done worse in the popular vote than Hillary (he would never have won Orange County, California for instance as Hillary did) and he would also probably have done worse than Hillary in Florida but he would have done better than Hillary in the rustbelt
It's easy sometimes to forget how small most countries are until you suddenly remember the UK is the 20th/21st most populous country on Earth. Though there's some others I did not realise were so large, like Tanzania, Algeria, even Canada.
You didn't realise Canada was so large? Or had such a population?
The latter. Large in population terms. I though it was more Australia in population scale.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Is disagreeing with HYUFD bullying now? Come off it. I doubt HY sees it as such.
No, but you do sometimes get the impression that the purpose of the site is not to discuss politics, or betting and the like but simply to try and prove Hyufd wrong.
HYUFD is absolutely right to focus people on the very real possibility Trump could win. Not only does he have electoral college bias on his side, he also has a formidable GOP voter suppression operation he can rely on to prevent a lot of people casting their ballots and he owns many of the key federal courts, including SCOTUS. If the election goes legal Trump is almost certain to end up with another four years.
If we are lucky and students don't manage to spread the virus much beyond the groves of academia, then this autumn blip could be over by end of the month.
Bob Hope of that in Newcastle from what I have seen.
Is disagreeing with HYUFD bullying now? Come off it. I doubt HY sees it as such.
Nope disagreeing with him isn’t. But, calling him effectively a liar (he’s said he wouldn’t vote for Trump and has been clear on that plenty of times but people want to disbelieve him) is
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Agree with you Charles 100pc. The Republicans are bending the rules but they are the rules. The Democrats want to change them altogether.
The same goes for giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC (and maybe Guam and American Samoa). It’s designed to permanently lock in their advantage
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Agree with you Charles 100pc. The Republicans are bending the rules but they are the rules. The Democrats want to change them altogether.
The same goes for giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC (and maybe Guam and American Samoa). It’s designed to permanently lock in their advantage
The motivation for the latter may well be as you suggest and pretty cynical as a result, but is it quite the same as 'changing the rules'? I mean, the USA has added states before, including 2 only 61 years ago, so clearly has a process for doing so - whatever reasons exist for not making them into states, that it goes against 'the rules' seems unlikely to be among the reasons.
Of course, sometimes rules should be changed, but it's unfortunate that oftentimes people are suddenly converted to the necessity of doing so by partisan considerations, like people discovering PR is the way after an election that has been lost.
It's easy sometimes to forget how small most countries are until you suddenly remember the UK is the 20th/21st most populous country on Earth. Though there's some others I did not realise were so large, like Tanzania, Algeria, even Canada.
You didn't realise Canada was so large? Or had such a population?
The latter. Large in population terms. I though it was more Australia in population scale.
It’s all relative I guess. California has a greater population than Canada, but the former is still a sizeable player.
New Zealand gets more way publicity here than you’d expect, given it has a population smaller than Scotland, and a smaller economy too.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Sorry but you are wrong. The GOP pulled shanigans within the rules to give them a majority.
If the Democrats "pack the court" then they too will be acting within the rules. There are no "rules" against "court packing" any more than there were "rules" against the Senate not holding hearings on Merrick Garland. The court has changed size frequently in the past, before Dred Scott.
In the Kavanaugh nomination the GOP changed the rules by scrapping the minority party's right to filibuster.
If the GOP want to push to the edge of the rules, so long as they stay within the rules, even changing the rules, then why shouldn't the Democrats do the same? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Agree with you Charles 100pc. The Republicans are bending the rules but they are the rules. The Democrats want to change them altogether.
The same goes for giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC (and maybe Guam and American Samoa). It’s designed to permanently lock in their advantage
Puerto Rico and DC citizens are Americans. Why should they be denied Statehood except to deny them the right to vote and lock in GOP advantage?
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
And the Democrats would be within the rules to increase the he size of the court.
What rule would they be breaking? None, zero, nothing.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Agree with you Charles 100pc. The Republicans are bending the rules but they are the rules. The Democrats want to change them altogether.
The same goes for giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC (and maybe Guam and American Samoa). It’s designed to permanently lock in their advantage
Oh, I didn't realise the USA was fixed at 50 states for all time. I assume when it was founded they wrote down it would be 50 states and only 50 states until the heat death of the universe.
His [Biden’s] refusal to disavow plans to pack the Supreme Court is deeply disturbing
Given the GOP's shenanigans with the Court, why shouldn't they fight fire with fire and pack it if they have the ability to do so?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
That’s just crap Philip. I’m sorry but you have a complete blind spot here.
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
Sorry but you are wrong. The GOP pulled shanigans within the rules to give them a majority.
If the Democrats "pack the court" then they too will be acting within the rules. There are no "rules" against "court packing" any more than there were "rules" against the Senate not holding hearings on Merrick Garland. The court has changed size frequently in the past, before Dred Scott.
In the Kavanaugh nomination the GOP changed the rules by scrapping the minority party's right to filibuster.
If the GOP want to push to the edge of the rules, so long as they stay within the rules, even changing the rules, then why shouldn't the Democrats do the same? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Yep. There may be a strong argument for it being unwise. Just as there was a strong argument for it being unwise for the Republicans to abolish the filibuster (or the Democrats when they did the same for some other category of nomination). Because the point about things like this is that there are no rules against doing it - they are just a Rubicon. The argument against doing so is always that once one does it, it clears the way for the other side to do the same once they are in power. And it creates a spiral that can't be reversed. But the rules still always allow one side to set off the spiral.
The Democrats had to abolish the filibuster for other categories of nomination because the Republicans were just blocking the Dems appointing any judges whatsoever. The GOP bring this entirely upon themselves.
I see @HYFUD is getting bullied as a possible Trumpster. He’s not, he’s being very clear that he would not have voted for him in 2016 and 2020. There is no reason why he shouldn’t be believed.
Those criticising him for posting Trafalgar and Rasmussen Polls should remember that there are plenty of people willing to post pro-Biden polls, this site needs some of the opposite.
And also, a message to those bang on about Trump but who yet vote Tory. The Corbynistas see you in exactly the same way as you view Trump, namely racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. So, the next time you bang on about how the Corbynistas are deranged because of some of the language they use about Conservatives, in some ways you are exactly two sides of the same coin.
The difference is that if the Tories are led by someone who is actually racist etc then I would not support them. I quit the party when Theresa May became leader because I dislike her and consider her to be a nasty, authoritarian xenophobe.
How's your watermelon going down tonight? Or have your eyes been caught by one of those letterbox women?
Comments
It might work!
Somewhere between motivated reasoning (the option I want is the one I must rationalise will be true) and sympathetic magic (if I believe it hard enough it becomes true) lies HYUFD.
Nevada is not irrelevant, it is entirely relevant to what a bad pollster Trafalgar is. Trafalgar said that Trump would win it. Trafalgar said it wouldn't even be that close, he'd win it by 5%.
They were wrong. Not just wrong winner, they were staggeringly, outside of the margin of error wrong.
Maybe I am losing my bearings since I tested positive for Trump hatred?
That is just karma for the GOP's own actions from 2016 onwards.
Those criticising him for posting Trafalgar and Rasmussen Polls should remember that there are plenty of people willing to post pro-Biden polls, this site needs some of the opposite.
And also, a message to those bang on about Trump but who yet vote Tory. The Corbynistas see you in exactly the same way as you view Trump, namely racist, sexist, homophobic, you name it. So, the next time you bang on about how the Corbynistas are deranged because of some of the language they use about Conservatives, in some ways you are exactly two sides of the same coin.
It certainly did not just start with Garland Merrick.
In terms of calling the EC right Trafalgar were the only pollster to have Trump winning it, Nevada was just a consolation prize for Hillary
Come on Joe. You can do this.
Finally.
Whereas court packing absolutely is precedented. The court numbers used to vary a lot more than they have in the past century.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
Vaccines are tricky and frightening things, not least because they are a branch of homeopathy. You'd have hoped that 3 centuries of evidence would be persuasive, but obviously not enough.
Though the good Reverend's point is the opposite of the 'My body, my right' kind of objection in fairness. More 'My body, but it's a rental from God, so no needles please'.
Or had such a population?
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
NEW THREAD
The same goes for giving statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC (and maybe Guam and American Samoa). It’s designed to permanently lock in their advantage
Of course, sometimes rules should be changed, but it's unfortunate that oftentimes people are suddenly converted to the necessity of doing so by partisan considerations, like people discovering PR is the way after an election that has been lost.
New Zealand gets more way publicity here than you’d expect, given it has a population smaller than Scotland, and a smaller economy too.
If the Democrats "pack the court" then they too will be acting within the rules. There are no "rules" against "court packing" any more than there were "rules" against the Senate not holding hearings on Merrick Garland. The court has changed size frequently in the past, before Dred Scott.
In the Kavanaugh nomination the GOP changed the rules by scrapping the minority party's right to filibuster.
If the GOP want to push to the edge of the rules, so long as they stay within the rules, even changing the rules, then why shouldn't the Democrats do the same? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What rule would they be breaking?
None, zero, nothing.
This is an insane argument by you.