I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
An 80 year old in a first world country has a life expectancy of 10 years, so reduces her life expectancy by that amount, by dying of *anything*. Presumably the point is that covid victims are reducing their life expectancy by *only* that amount, unlike a 30 year old dying of cancer and losing 50 years. Which you would expect anyway, because covid victims tend to be old.
That's a great observation that I think supports my point. Thank you.
So how about this as a rough interpretation?
1. If people over 80 years old get coronavirus and it kills them, they die 10 years earlier than expected 2. One in ten 80 year olds who get coronavirus die from it.
3. So getting coronavirus reduces the life expectancy of people over 80 by one year on average.
Coronavirus reduces life expectancy by 1 year, (not 10 years) in the elderly who contract it and die of it.
"Coronavirus reduces life expectancy by 1 year, (not 10 years) in the elderly who contract it and die of it."
No, Coronavirus reduces the life expectancy - on average - of an 80 year old who catches it by one year.
But those who die of it, could have expected to have lived a further ten years. Those who die have lost ten years (on average). Those who do not have lost no years
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
An 80 year old in a first world country has a life expectancy of 10 years, so reduces her life expectancy by that amount, by dying of *anything*. Presumably the point is that covid victims are reducing their life expectancy by *only* that amount, unlike a 30 year old dying of cancer and losing 50 years. Which you would expect anyway, because covid victims tend to be old.
That's a great observation that I think supports my point. Thank you.
So how about this as a rough interpretation?
1. If people over 80 years old get coronavirus and it kills them, they die 10 years earlier than expected 2. One in ten 80 year olds who get coronavirus die from it.
3. So getting coronavirus reduces the life expectancy of people over 80 by one year on average.
Coronavirus reduces life expectancy by 1 year, (not 10 years) in the elderly who contract it and die of it.
Your maths there contains a contradiction
But those who die of it, could have expected to have lived a further ten years. Those who die have lost ten years (on average). Those who do not have lost no years
That last part misses the point.
We don't yet fully know the effects on the body of long-Covid but there are plenty of reports suggesting it causes serious long-term damage.
Which reduces life expectancy and therefore, potentially (certainly), years. See?
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Just to say I really appreciate having these thorough, well-reasoned, data-based posts that @MrEd is doing against the consensus (although in this case I think I agree with the consensus).
Thank you @edmundintokyo and also to @dixiedean for these kind comments. I am aware I might be wrong (and by a country mile) but let's see.
Also, @rcs1000. sent a reply to you re your questions. I realise I put in MI when I should have put in FL for the 4 above so apologies, I was typing out before a call.
In the spirit of openness , this was the original article I was quoting from:
However, I also have just found this from CBS - confirms the above for FL, PA and NC but says the Democrats are gaining in AZ. It looks like, for AZ, NBC were saying that the trends were less advantageous for the Democrats than they were in 2016 but they still had more registrations so apologies there:
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
There’s two useful points from it.
1 - There was a lot of bunk from some of the more ignorant in the early days (Toby Young was the most prominent) that the dead were all at deaths door and would have promptly died even if covid hadn’t come along. That it just nudged them through the door a few days early. If, on average, they would have expected 10-13 more years, that ain’t death’s door (any more than someone could come up to your grieving family after such an airplane crash and say, “Hey, he was about to die, anyway”)
2 - We can get an idea of the overall human cost of covid - just like we could get an idea of the human cost of an airplane crash (150 people on board, 20 years of life expectancy lost per head, gives 3000 person-years lost in the crash). One million dead, 13 years lost on average, equals 13,000,000 person-years lost. Call it 3000 airliner crashes in the past nine months. About ten to twelve airliners per day over spring, summer, and autumn, and still going.
I really thought govt would be able to get on top of the virus, but the rises in hospital cases are grim.
Govt needs to act *fast* and *early*.
The circuit breaker looks like a good option? 2 weeks is short enough that the damage should be limited. And if it saves us 4 weeks later, then it's a good investment!
Can someone comment on this? Philip T said great polls for Biden, but to my eyes in the key states of Penn, Mich, Wisc, NC and Ohio Biden is doing worse than Clinton was four years ago. Am I missing something.
Worth remembering that the methodology has been adjusted since last time to take into account HS education - plus of course there are much fewer undecideds this time around. Last time undecideds broke to Trump late on, but if Biden is over 50% in PA then it doesn't matter how many undecideds break to Trump there this time around.
I think that is a very important point. People comparing Biden's leads with Hilary's leads are not necessarily comparing apples with apples. After the polling failures of 2016 several pollsters will presumably have looked at their methodology to see where they went wrong.
As Mike has pointed out before what tends to happen in this country is that the pollsters will slightly overcorrect so that the Tory vote, for example, might be underestimated in one election and overestimated in the next. If this perfectly natural and perfectly proper approach has been followed by US pollsters the Biden polls may be significantly better than the Hilary polls because if they had been prepared on the same basis they would show even larger leads than they do now. In short just as Hilary undershot her polling it is plausible that Biden will overshoot his.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
It’s possible that not even Boris believes in Boris. The scepticism is contagious.
These weren’t the circumstances in which he wanted to be making this year’s party conference speech. He needs to feed on the thrill of the lights, applause and laughter. But even if he had been addressing a full hall in Birmingham, rather than an empty cupboard, this would still have been the wrong speech at the wrong time. Seldom can someone have so badly misjudged the mood of an empty room.
Can someone comment on this? Philip T said great polls for Biden, but to my eyes in the key states of Penn, Mich, Wisc, NC and Ohio Biden is doing worse than Clinton was four years ago. Am I missing something.
4 years ago pollsters were putting out state polls with High School or less forming 10% of the weighting.
Now they putting out polls with HS or less forming 34% of the weighting.
That's worth about 2 points extra on Trump's score and 2 point off Biden's score at a minimum.
It is why I so obsessively check a polls Education weighting and bin any poll that does not report it.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
Trump might try this but I doubt he could persuade courts and legislatures to go along with it. Firstly a lot of them were never-Trump all along, secondly their careers aren't really furthered by years more of Trump chaos, and thirdly riled-up Dems would have their heads either electorally or if all electoral paths were denied to them, literally.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
Can someone comment on this? Philip T said great polls for Biden, but to my eyes in the key states of Penn, Mich, Wisc, NC and Ohio Biden is doing worse than Clinton was four years ago. Am I missing something.
4 years ago pollsters were putting out state polls with High School or less forming 10% of the weighting.
Now they putting out polls with HS or less forming 34% of the weighting.
That's worth about 2 points extra on Trump's score and 2 point off Biden's score at a minimum.
It is why I so obsessively check a polls Education weighting and bin any poll that does not report it.
Thanks - even so, even allowing for the differing methology I would have expected the figures to be better for Biden than in this table in those states I cite.
What is your overall impression of this data, Alastair - great for Biden, as Philip T said?
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
Trump might try this but I doubt he could persuade courts and legislatures to go along with it. Firstly a lot of them were never-Trump all along, secondly their careers aren't really furthered by years more of Trump chaos, and thirdly riled-up Dems would have their heads either electorally or if all electoral paths were denied to them, literally.
A narrow (rigged through the courts) Trump victory would probably lead to an increase in people exercising their 2nd amendment right. Only really seen Georgia (And its overarching federal circuit court) go the full Trump though so far. I'm not sure Gorsuch would have it either. Democrat voters will have to do everything correctly and on time, and wait in huge queues but Trump's polarising enough to prompt that
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
Shelby County vs Holder is a top 10 worst decision by the Supreme Court.
It was an astoundingly bad ruling that shat on the Constitution.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
Scott seems to post 24/7 to which you have to question when does he ever sleep
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It might be that we're getting over-exercised about the prospect of the election being fixed. An increasing unwell Trump might just slink away.
However, I also wonder if it might be a good move for Biden to promise an all-party review of the American electoral process, including that for appointing Electoral College electors. I suspect it would be a step to far to review the existence thereof.
A better morning here today; massive thunderclap about 4.30pm yesterday though.
Can someone comment on this? Philip T said great polls for Biden, but to my eyes in the key states of Penn, Mich, Wisc, NC and Ohio Biden is doing worse than Clinton was four years ago. Am I missing something.
Well we know the polls in 2016 were not weighted for education and overstated Clinton, so you should take off approx 5% from the 2016 polls. That error is now corrected in the majority of 2020 polls.
Another potential October surprise - a fairly significant hurricane (Hurricane Delta) is on its way to Mexico and the Gulf Coast. Too early to say precisely where it will land but currently headed for Louisiana
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It goes well beyond that. The Roberts court has refused to recognise even the most blatant gerrymandering as being unconstitutional. As this article lays out, that requires a deeply selective reading of the constitution (and is utterly inconsistent with his other judgments). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/rucho-v-common-cause-occasion-sorrow/593227/ The Kagan dissent says it all, bearing in mind that she is the least emotive and most centrist of all the liberals on the court.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
This is the problem of government via re-interpretation of the Constitution. The politicians have abdicated they duty to make laws and move them forward.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
Scott seems to post 24/7 to which you have to question when does he ever sleep
S/he doesn't really post though does he/she. Generally just re-posts tweets from all over.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Not sure why a lot of people are so negative about him being president. He's a decent guy who has worked across the aisle for decades, knows how congress works more than just about anyone left alive and whose picked a smart VP. His cabinet will be packed with talent and not criminals and 'yes' men from business. Buttigieg, Warren and who knows all else.
A period of stability and calm with a functioning administration would make him one of the greatest presidents even if he does nothing.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
Scott seems to post 24/7 to which you have to question when does he ever sleep
S/he doesn't really post though does he/she. Generally just re-posts tweets from all over.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
Can someone comment on this? Philip T said great polls for Biden, but to my eyes in the key states of Penn, Mich, Wisc, NC and Ohio Biden is doing worse than Clinton was four years ago. Am I missing something.
4 years ago pollsters were putting out state polls with High School or less forming 10% of the weighting.
Now they putting out polls with HS or less forming 34% of the weighting.
That's worth about 2 points extra on Trump's score and 2 point off Biden's score at a minimum.
It is why I so obsessively check a polls Education weighting and bin any poll that does not report it.
Thanks - even so, even allowing for the differing methology I would have expected the figures to be better for Biden than in this table in those states I cite.
What is your overall impression of this data, Alastair - great for Biden, as Philip T said?
2 more things to remember when comparing with 4 years ago:
1. This time 4 years ago Clinton was (in 538 national averages) polling 45%. Biden is now polling 51% - so he is polling 6 % better than Clinton. I'm sure the state polling won't be that different. This is because the number of undecideds is much lower this time. Trump won from behind last time (mainly) by getting most of the undecided voters - that's not going to work this time.
2. This time 4 years ago was a bit of a peak in Clinton's lead over Trump. If you look over the previous 4 months Clinton's lead varied between 0.2% and 8% - so her actual lead in the vote share in the election was well above the lowest lead in the preceding months. Biden's lead in the last 4 months has been much steadier between 6.2 and 9.6% - if his actual lead in the election is within that range (or even slightly lower) he should win comfortably.
Biden is doing much better in the polling than Clinton was.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
Sure.
Is it a surprise to you how it’s working out, then ?
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
This is the problem of government via re-interpretation of the Constitution. The politicians have abdicated they duty to make laws and move them forward.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
Absolutely 100% agreed. That is why I support our lack of a formalised written constitution and decisions made in Parliament. Protections only mean anything if people want them to - and if the decisions are made in Parliament then they are more likely to accept the decisions.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
Yes, they should be running a candidate who isn't, um, 10 points ahead of Trump in the polls?
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
This is the problem of government via re-interpretation of the Constitution. The politicians have abdicated they duty to make laws and move them forward.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
You can suggest anything you like, but the US has the constitution it has. And amending it - particularly in so substantial a manner - is exceptionally difficult. And even the most far reaching amendments don’t always fare well at the hands of determined partisans, as the history of the 14th makes brutally clear.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Scott is utterly obsessed with retweeting anything that is attacking Boris or brexit
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Scott is utterly obsessed with retweeting anything that is attacking Boris or brexit
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
In other other news, my work email inbox has started receiving a Daily Briefing email from Cortana. I didn't subscribe to this email. I have disabled Cortana for the hateful piece of bloatware it is. So how and why has Microsoft decided to add me into this "service"? Just how many antitrust lawsuits does the company want to lose?
My departure date from the current job has been pulled forward to next Friday. It will be a happy day when I switch Windows 10 off for the last time. Compared to Chrome OS it truly is like wading through treacle.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
If this goes nuclear and it ends up with all governors appointing Electors then Trump loses 247 to 338
That should be 247 to 291. Sorry. Based on the party of the Governors of each State.
This proposal/warning of using the ECV electorate is effectively a coup d'etat.
Huge political violence if it happens, which would suit Trump of course.
Of course. It would basically mean the abolition of US democracy. Won't happen IMO. Whatever happens the electoral college will be made up of people certified on the basis of votes counted. The crucial point being votes counted not votes cast.
The Trump/GOP tactic/strategy will be to find ways of avoiding counting votes cast. Not declaring them fraudulent after the event.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
Yes, though Pence objects to the sensible precaution of a Perspex screen.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Scott is utterly obsessed with retweeting anything that is attacking Boris or brexit
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
Most people have to sleep
Yes OK there is the political maxim about not standing in the way of your enemy screwing themselves over. But to be fair to Scott when so much of the anti-Boris stuff comes from the Tories these days you have to laugh.
If these were normal times. If Boris was still Cameron and we had solid if slightly deviant government and no pandemic and no economic crisis then Scott would be overblowing it. But we aren't in those happy times. Every time Shagger lies, people die. Every time he bumbles, people lose their job. The idea that people should step back and patriotically give him the benefit of the doubt are long gone.
He is a disaster. According to his own MPs. Attacking the person carrying this message seems like any old excuse to ignore the actual problem - the PM.
In other other news, my work email inbox has started receiving a Daily Briefing email from Cortana. I didn't subscribe to this email. I have disabled Cortana for the hateful piece of bloatware it is. So how and why has Microsoft decided to add me into this "service"? Just how many antitrust lawsuits does the company want to lose?
My departure date from the current job has been pulled forward to next Friday. It will be a happy day when I switch Windows 10 off for the last time. Compared to Chrome OS it truly is like wading through treacle.
Is that the rebranded paperclip ? (I’ve never used Windows.)
Feel like a pin cushion blood test, flu jab and heparin injection all within an hour! In for blood test nurse says you WILL have the flu jab as it goes in.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
Yes, though Pence objects to the sensible precaution of a Perspex screen.
Tell him that Senator Harris is on her unclean time. He'll want the screen then.
Biden has an impressive team of speechwriters - and did a pretty good job of delivering the product yesterday. If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
Unlikely
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
Who do you think they should have picked, and how were the primary voters supposed to work out that the person you have in mind was the right person?
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
An 80 year old in a first world country has a life expectancy of 10 years, so reduces her life expectancy by that amount, by dying of *anything*. Presumably the point is that covid victims are reducing their life expectancy by *only* that amount, unlike a 30 year old dying of cancer and losing 50 years. Which you would expect anyway, because covid victims tend to be old.
That's a great observation that I think supports my point. Thank you.
So how about this as a rough interpretation?
1. If people over 80 years old get coronavirus and it kills them, they die 10 years earlier than expected 2. One in ten 80 year olds who get coronavirus die from it.
3. So getting coronavirus reduces the life expectancy of people over 80 by one year on average.
Coronavirus reduces life expectancy by 1 year, (not 10 years) in the elderly who contract it and die of it.
Your maths there contains a contradiction
But those who die of it, could have expected to have lived a further ten years. Those who die have lost ten years (on average). Those who do not have lost no years
That last part misses the point.
We don't yet fully know the effects on the body of long-Covid but there are plenty of reports suggesting it causes serious long-term damage.
Which reduces life expectancy and therefore, potentially (certainly), years. See?
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
We all have our biases and Scott often posts very informative tweets and also some funny tweets. It would not be the same if he wasn't here doing that.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
We all have our biases and Scott often posts very informative tweets and also some funny tweets. It would not be the same if he wasn't here doing that.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
We all have our biases and Scott often posts very informative tweets and also some funny tweets. It would not be the same if he wasn't here doing that.
Scott quite often adds his own captions and comments which adds spice.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Scott is utterly obsessed with retweeting anything that is attacking Boris or brexit
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
Most people have to sleep
Yes OK there is the political maxim about not standing in the way of your enemy screwing themselves over. But to be fair to Scott when so much of the anti-Boris stuff comes from the Tories these days you have to laugh.
If these were normal times. If Boris was still Cameron and we had solid if slightly deviant government and no pandemic and no economic crisis then Scott would be overblowing it. But we aren't in those happy times. Every time Shagger lies, people die. Every time he bumbles, people lose their job. The idea that people should step back and patriotically give him the benefit of the doubt are long gone.
He is a disaster. According to his own MPs. Attacking the person carrying this message seems like any old excuse to ignore the actual problem - the PM.
That's not what we object to/worry about with Scott. As you say, criticising our present PM is up there with shooting fish in a barrel ........ although if the fish is small and the barrel big, why should that be easy?
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
Philiplovesboris.com says hello.
I think this site is pretty well balanced. Not too many Boris fans, but in terms of volume of posts PT and HYUFD make up for that and make the case for the current government well. Although there's not a lot of love for Boris, the majority of posters on here strike me as conservatives (small c), rather on the 'wet' side. Quite a few liberals too. But only a handful of proper neo-marxists!
And personally, I value Scott's tweets as a shortcut to external sources I wouldn't pick up otherwise.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
This is the problem of government via re-interpretation of the Constitution. The politicians have abdicated they duty to make laws and move them forward.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
You can suggest anything you like, but the US has the constitution it has. And amending it - particularly in so substantial a manner - is exceptionally difficult. And even the most far reaching amendments don’t always fare well at the hands of determined partisans, as the history of the 14th makes brutally clear.
The system is broken. The last, inevitable, stroke will be the packing of the Supreme Court - which will happen sooner or later.
Lawyers may love a system where they wield ultimate power - if they are the lawyers who control the court.
It is interesting to listen to my American relatives - a number of lawyers there. Progressives to a fault. Some of them have started to wonder about this - now that the system isn't heading their way.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
We all have our biases and Scott often posts very informative tweets and also some funny tweets. It would not be the same if he wasn't here doing that.
PS I am also missing Malcolm.
In a way I'm rather glad to learn he's been (temporarily, I hope) banned. I was beginning to wonder whether something had gone amiss with Mrs Malc's recovery.
I’m a little surprised more play has not been made of this in the US.
Regeneron Position Statement on Stem Cell Research https://www.regeneron.com/sites/default/files/Regeneron-Position-Stem-Cell-Research.pdf As is the case with many other science-focused biotechnology companies, Regeneron uses a wide variety of research tools and technologies to help discover and develop new therapeutics. Stem cells are one such tool. The stem cells most commonly used at Regeneron are mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. Currently, there are limited research efforts employing human-induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from adult human cells and human embryonic stem cells that are approved for research use by the National Institutes of Health and created solely through in vitro fertilization. Research using such stem cells allows Regeneron to model complex diseases, test new drug candidates and can help unlock new scientific insights that ultimately could lead to the discovery of new treatments for people with serious diseases....
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
I'm really looking forward to the debate early tomorrow morning. Pence seems to me to be a shrinking violet though I haven't seen him in a debate. My expectations of Kamala are very high - perhaps too high. I've cleared my diary tomorrow while I recover from the late night and bottle of wine.
I haven't been on this site for a week and surpirse surprise out of the first 6 posts 4 are from Scott with retweets criticising the Government. This site needs to change its name to Scotthatesboris.com
To be fair to Scott he is given a vast ocean of topics which Shagger can be criticized for. And when so much of the abuse hurled in his direction seems to be coming from his own MPs these days its rather difficult to make the accusation this is pointless partisanship...
Scott is utterly obsessed with retweeting anything that is attacking Boris or brexit
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
Most people have to sleep
Only mere mortals have to sleep. Not wor Scott.
Clearly both Scott and Robert T are run from Russia. Just stirring things up.
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
That's a good point. SCOTUS didn't say that the voter registration legislation couldn't happen did they? Just that it needs to be justified?
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What SCOTUS said was that you couldn't justify voter registration legislation now on the basis that the system was clearly biased against minorities, especially blacks, 40 years ago. The legislation should either have achieved its objective by now, in which case it was no longer needed, or evidence should be found that the discrimination persists.
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
It is a very bizarre ruling. The evidence might not exist precisely because the law prevents people changing the system and striking down the law gave the opportunity for the bias to be recreated.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
This is the problem of government via re-interpretation of the Constitution. The politicians have abdicated they duty to make laws and move them forward.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
You can suggest anything you like, but the US has the constitution it has. And amending it - particularly in so substantial a manner - is exceptionally difficult. And even the most far reaching amendments don’t always fare well at the hands of determined partisans, as the history of the 14th makes brutally clear.
The system is broken. The last, inevitable, stroke will be the packing of the Supreme Court - which will happen sooner or later.
Lawyers may love a system where they wield ultimate power - if they are the lawyers who control the court.
It is interesting to listen to my American relatives - a number of lawyers there. Progressives to a fault. Some of them have started to wonder about this - now that the system isn't heading their way.
The Supreme Court would be best reformed to work like the Senate with 1/3 of the judges being replaced every 4 years. That allows a decent term length of 12 years without allowing Presidents to arbritrarily cement their policies for decades simply because they happened to be in office when a justice snuffed it.
Deaths/resignations would have to be thought about but could probably be handled by recess appointments.
I’m a little surprised more play has not been made of this in the US.
Regeneron Position Statement on Stem Cell Research https://www.regeneron.com/sites/default/files/Regeneron-Position-Stem-Cell-Research.pdf As is the case with many other science-focused biotechnology companies, Regeneron uses a wide variety of research tools and technologies to help discover and develop new therapeutics. Stem cells are one such tool. The stem cells most commonly used at Regeneron are mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. Currently, there are limited research efforts employing human-induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from adult human cells and human embryonic stem cells that are approved for research use by the National Institutes of Health and created solely through in vitro fertilization. Research using such stem cells allows Regeneron to model complex diseases, test new drug candidates and can help unlock new scientific insights that ultimately could lead to the discovery of new treatments for people with serious diseases....
Ironically Trump's treatment uses human embryonic stem cells, while Trump's nominee is a life begins at conception extremist who is against that.
On the one hand: Scott finding pertinent, relevant tweets and posting them here where many people don't have the time to find them directly.
On the other: paragraphs and paragraphs of people saying how they could never support Boris but they support Boris and how they want him gone but want him to stay until he has done the thing they don't support him for.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
Yes, though Pence objects to the sensible precaution of a Perspex screen.
Precaution against what though? Presumably Pence and Harris will be tested before the event. I`m guessing that Pence feels the Dems are thinking about their own political advantage.
In Sweden the antibody % is half in older people compared to working age. In Spain (and presumably UK) they figures are equal. Younger people have been allowed to build up immunity by getting on with their lives, albeit with some restrictions such as no standing at the bar.
See Unherd's latest lockdown interview.
Maybe it wouldn't work in UK because we don't obey common sense rules like the Swedes, but we should be discussing it more widely.
Discussing it more widely? Apart from the USA and Brazil I feel like I've heard about no other country in the world other than Sweden for months.
And often inaccurately, as people project their own fantasy covid policies. Post 16 education is online there for example, working from home a common response etc, and the economic slump much the same as everywhere else.
Most infuriatingly, it's also people who have done their level best for the whole of their lives in ensuring that the UK is as little like Sweden as possible in political terms.
In Sweden the political process is superior. They may have weathered the Covid storm better than the European average. Then again, they may not have: in my book, it's still early days.
But a cohesive consensus-based society, where political opinion is properly mediated, executive power is assigned on the basis of merit rather than where you went to school and who you married, and freedom of the press is a reality, is always going to have a better chance of getting these things right, or adjusting quickly when off-course.
Right-wingers should take this opportunity to think about the kind of society (insofar as they believe in it) they have created.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
Yes, though Pence objects to the sensible precaution of a Perspex screen.
Precaution against what though? Presumably Pence and Harris will be tested before the event. I`m guessing that Pence feels the Dems are thinking about their own political advantage.
Tests can have false negatives. Much of POTUS's team were testing negative, until suddenly they weren't and the virus had already spread like wildfire.
I take it the Veep debate is still going ahead? I look forward to seeing Pence recoil in horror at a womenfolk of Gilead not stuck in the kitchen or nursing babies as he thinks they should be.
Yes, though Pence objects to the sensible precaution of a Perspex screen.
Precaution against what though? Presumably Pence and Harris will be tested before the event. I`m guessing that Pence feels the Dems are thinking about their own political advantage.
Pence has been present at at least one, probably more, superspreading events. The debate falls within what would be the 14 day quarantine period, and as we know, it is perfectly possible to test negative and subsequently to be infectious/test positive.
I'm guessing 'an abundance of caution' - a phrase more often abused by the Republicans - is entirely sensible for the VP to a 77 year old Presidential candidate. The Democrats appear to take this seriously; the Republicans do not.
On the one hand: Scott finding pertinent, relevant tweets and posting them here where many people don't have the time to find them directly.
On the other: paragraphs and paragraphs of people saying how they could never support Boris but they support Boris and how they want him gone but want him to stay until he has done the thing they don't support him for.
I'll take the former.
This may be a complete non sequitur, but I value both Scott and Big_G.
Comments
"Coronavirus reduces life expectancy by 1 year, (not 10 years) in the elderly who contract it and die of it."
No, Coronavirus reduces the life expectancy - on average - of an 80 year old who catches it by one year.
But those who die of it, could have expected to have lived a further ten years. Those who die have lost ten years (on average). Those who do not have lost no years
We don't yet fully know the effects on the body of long-Covid but there are plenty of reports suggesting it causes serious long-term damage.
Which reduces life expectancy and therefore, potentially (certainly), years. See?
A similar thread appeared in the run up to GE2019 and at the time I scoffed: as a left-leaning liberal my heart took over.
Bet with your head, not your heart. Biden is on course to win big.
Essentially what Trump may try to do is get states to completely ignore their popular vote tallies. He would say that vote tallies weren't safe due to fraud and then the state legislature in various states would just appoint Republican electors to the Electoral College.
Republicans control the State legislatures in all six key swing states (PA, MI, WI, FL, NC, AZ) - though four have Democrat Governors who may appoint rival Democrat electors.
This then sets up the possibility of Congress having to choose between rival sets of electors. This would be the new Congress in early January but with Pence the presiding officer.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/
Also, @rcs1000. sent a reply to you re your questions. I realise I put in MI when I should have put in FL for the 4 above so apologies, I was typing out before a call.
In the spirit of openness
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-s-winning-voter-registration-battle-against-biden-key-states-n1241674
However, I also have just found this from CBS - confirms the above for FL, PA and NC but says the Democrats are gaining in AZ. It looks like, for AZ, NBC were saying that the trends were less advantageous for the Democrats than they were in 2016 but they still had more registrations so apologies there:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/voter-registration-republicans-swing-states-narrow-gap/
1 - There was a lot of bunk from some of the more ignorant in the early days (Toby Young was the most prominent) that the dead were all at deaths door and would have promptly died even if covid hadn’t come along. That it just nudged them through the door a few days early. If, on average, they would have expected 10-13 more years, that ain’t death’s door (any more than someone could come up to your grieving family after such an airplane crash and say, “Hey, he was about to die, anyway”)
2 - We can get an idea of the overall human cost of covid - just like we could get an idea of the human cost of an airplane crash (150 people on board, 20 years of life expectancy lost per head, gives 3000 person-years lost in the crash). One million dead, 13 years lost on average, equals 13,000,000 person-years lost. Call it 3000 airliner crashes in the past nine months. About ten to twelve airliners per day over spring, summer, and autumn, and still going.
I really thought govt would be able to get on top of the virus, but the rises in hospital cases are grim.
Govt needs to act *fast* and *early*.
The circuit breaker looks like a good option? 2 weeks is short enough that the damage should be limited. And if it saves us 4 weeks later, then it's a good investment!
As Mike has pointed out before what tends to happen in this country is that the pollsters will slightly overcorrect so that the Tory vote, for example, might be underestimated in one election and overestimated in the next. If this perfectly natural and perfectly proper approach has been followed by US pollsters the Biden polls may be significantly better than the Hilary polls because if they had been prepared on the same basis they would show even larger leads than they do now. In short just as Hilary undershot her polling it is plausible that Biden will overshoot his.
These weren’t the circumstances in which he wanted to be making this year’s party conference speech. He needs to feed on the thrill of the lights, applause and laughter. But even if he had been addressing a full hall in Birmingham, rather than an empty cupboard, this would still have been the wrong speech at the wrong time. Seldom can someone have so badly misjudged the mood of an empty room.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/06/boris-johnsons-tone-deaf-lies-fall-flat-as-uk-grows-up
Now they putting out polls with HS or less forming 34% of the weighting.
That's worth about 2 points extra on Trump's score and 2 point off Biden's score at a minimum.
It is why I so obsessively check a polls Education weighting and bin any poll that does not report it.
Some follow-up reporting on the people from PA quoted by the Atlantic:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-republicans-report-alleges-plan-to-circumvent-popular-vote
I think that many Americans are increasingly apprehensive that their democracy, which has been creaking for more than a decade, might not operate this time. I suspect that this apprehension is one of the things that keeps Trump's position in the market stronger than his polling would indicate. If we do have President Biden we can only hope that a national effort is made to restore credibility to the electoral system, whether that involves undertaking the work that the Supreme Court said was needed to justify voter registration legislation, the impartiality and resources of vote counters, the allocation of ballot boxes, etc etc.
I think the GOP have gone out of their way to justify it. It should be possible for a Democrat majority Congress and President to pass legislation accordingly.
What is your overall impression of this data, Alastair - great for Biden, as Philip T said?
I have a real problem with SCOTUS using the constitution in this way to strike down legislation but the fact is that very little work seems to have been done to meet the criteria set. Of course motivated and partial State Officials who don't want to produce such evidence are a part of the problem.
Only really seen Georgia (And its overarching federal circuit court) go the full Trump though so far. I'm not sure Gorsuch would have it either.
Democrat voters will have to do everything correctly and on time, and wait in huge queues but Trump's polarising enough to prompt that
Personally I miss his colourful contributions.
It was an astoundingly bad ruling that shat on the Constitution.
It is like having a rule that you must not dump sewage into the water supply, because people keep getting poisoned, then years later saying the water supply is clean with no sewage in it, so striking down the rule that you can't leak sewage into it - at which point people start dumping sewage again.
If he can govern as well as he’s run his campaign he might surprise us all.
However, I also wonder if it might be a good move for Biden to promise an all-party review of the American electoral process, including that for appointing Electoral College electors. I suspect it would be a step to far to review the existence thereof.
A better morning here today; massive thunderclap about 4.30pm yesterday though.
https://img2.rtve.es/rtve/minutoaminuto/userfiles/image/camionmascarilla.jpg
Anyone who is anyone gets the red card occasionally!
The Roberts court has refused to recognise even the most blatant gerrymandering as being unconstitutional. As this article lays out, that requires a deeply selective reading of the constitution (and is utterly inconsistent with his other judgments).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/rucho-v-common-cause-occasion-sorrow/593227/
The Kagan dissent says it all, bearing in mind that she is the least emotive and most centrist of all the liberals on the court.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, Men are not made for Constitutions."
Government by re-interpretation has fallen into the obvious trap - control the re-interpretation, control the law. So it comes down to how many middle aged ideologs of your own strip you can get on the Supreme Court.
The other day we were having a discussion about constitutions. Someone argued for the idea of the ultimate, unchangeable law that would protect, say minorities.
Constitutions don't really protect minorities - history is full of hideous dictatorships with constitutions stuffed fulled of magnificent freedoms. It's the courts that decide what they mean, and that is down, ultimately to who controls the courts.
Ultimately, a constitution works because people believe in it. The system believes in it. You see this in the US, with the First Amendment - there is muttering, sometimes, but it has universal support.
I would suggest a system like Switzerland, where the people can change the law (and constitution) to any damn thing they please, any time, has more constitutional protection from harm to minorities etc than the US. Because the Swiss constitution is an agreed set of laws, not a climbing frame for partisan judges.
A period of stability and calm with a functioning administration would make him one of the greatest presidents even if he does nothing.
If the Democrats really wanted Trump out Biden wouldn't be their candidate.
Or a bot running on an account?
The Roberts "oh the law was constitutional and now its not" dance is sickening.
1. This time 4 years ago Clinton was (in 538 national averages) polling 45%. Biden is now polling 51% - so he is polling 6 % better than Clinton. I'm sure the state polling won't be that different. This is because the number of undecideds is much lower this time. Trump won from behind last time (mainly) by getting most of the undecided voters - that's not going to work this time.
2. This time 4 years ago was a bit of a peak in Clinton's lead over Trump. If you look over the previous 4 months Clinton's lead varied between 0.2% and 8% - so her actual lead in the vote share in the election was well above the lowest lead in the preceding months. Biden's lead in the last 4 months has been much steadier between 6.2 and 9.6% - if his actual lead in the election is within that range (or even slightly lower) he should win comfortably.
Biden is doing much better in the polling than Clinton was.
Is it a surprise to you how it’s working out, then ?
Huge political violence if it happens, which would suit Trump of course.
It's becoming like the play Waiting for Godot.
And amending it - particularly in so substantial a manner - is exceptionally difficult.
And even the most far reaching amendments don’t always fare well at the hands of determined partisans, as the history of the 14th makes brutally clear.
How he can do this all through the day and night is the question.
Most people have to sleep
My departure date from the current job has been pulled forward to next Friday. It will be a happy day when I switch Windows 10 off for the last time. Compared to Chrome OS it truly is like wading through treacle.
The Trump/GOP tactic/strategy will be to find ways of avoiding counting votes cast. Not declaring them fraudulent after the event.
If these were normal times. If Boris was still Cameron and we had solid if slightly deviant government and no pandemic and no economic crisis then Scott would be overblowing it. But we aren't in those happy times. Every time Shagger lies, people die. Every time he bumbles, people lose their job. The idea that people should step back and patriotically give him the benefit of the doubt are long gone.
He is a disaster. According to his own MPs. Attacking the person carrying this message seems like any old excuse to ignore the actual problem - the PM.
(I’ve never used Windows.)
I think this site is pretty well balanced. Not too many Boris fans, but in terms of volume of posts PT and HYUFD make up for that and make the case for the current government well. Although there's not a lot of love for Boris, the majority of posters on here strike me as conservatives (small c), rather on the 'wet' side. Quite a few liberals too. But only a handful of proper neo-marxists!
And personally, I value Scott's tweets as a shortcut to external sources I wouldn't pick up otherwise.
Lawyers may love a system where they wield ultimate power - if they are the lawyers who control the court.
It is interesting to listen to my American relatives - a number of lawyers there. Progressives to a fault. Some of them have started to wonder about this - now that the system isn't heading their way.
Regeneron Position Statement on Stem Cell Research
https://www.regeneron.com/sites/default/files/Regeneron-Position-Stem-Cell-Research.pdf
As is the case with many other science-focused biotechnology companies, Regeneron uses a wide variety of research tools and technologies to help discover and develop new therapeutics. Stem cells are one such tool. The stem cells most commonly used at Regeneron are mouse embryonic stem cells and human blood stem cells. Currently, there are limited research efforts employing human-induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from adult human cells and human embryonic stem cells that are approved for research use by the National Institutes of Health and created solely through in vitro fertilization. Research using such stem cells allows Regeneron to model complex diseases, test new drug candidates and can help unlock new scientific insights that ultimately could lead to the discovery of new treatments for people with serious diseases....
Deaths/resignations would have to be thought about but could probably be handled by recess appointments.
Bring him back.
On the other: paragraphs and paragraphs of people saying how they could never support Boris but they support Boris and how they want him gone but want him to stay until he has done the thing they don't support him for.
I'll take the former.
In Sweden the political process is superior. They may have weathered the Covid storm better than the European average. Then again, they may not have: in my book, it's still early days.
But a cohesive consensus-based society, where political opinion is properly mediated, executive power is assigned on the basis of merit rather than where you went to school and who you married, and freedom of the press is a reality, is always going to have a better chance of getting these things right, or adjusting quickly when off-course.
Right-wingers should take this opportunity to think about the kind of society (insofar as they believe in it) they have created.
They won't though.
I'm guessing 'an abundance of caution' - a phrase more often abused by the Republicans - is entirely sensible for the VP to a 77 year old Presidential candidate.
The Democrats appear to take this seriously; the Republicans do not.