I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
She's always trying to emote but it feels too forced.
Assuming Biden wins it's going to be a problem for the Dems when he retires because she's not bad enough to clearly need to be ditched but also not good enough to win against a competent opponent.
You'd think Luntz would have edited out the echo before the start. The automatic subtitles have Mike Pence as "my pants". Only one respondent thought Harris won.
Harris won the debate IMO, but I'm not an American swing voter. I wasn't bothered by her facial expressions while Pence was talking but maybe that's the sort of thing that annoys a certain type of voter in the US.
It doesnt sound like the debate achieved much apart from the obvious...the next big thing is the arguing/squabbles over the next Presidential debate a week away (on paper) I suspect there will be as much hot air about is it going ahead and format as the actual event....
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
"Coronavirus restrictions are to be further tightened in parts of England early next week, with the closure of bars and restaurants a possibility, the BBC has been told.
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
You'd think Luntz would have edited out the echo before the start. The automatic subtitles have Mike Pence as "my pants". Only one respondent thought Harris won.
The Luntz focus group should be required viewing for everyone who thinks Zoom calls are a good substitute for in-person meetings. Almost every shortcoming was illustrated, from speakers not appearing, or appearing in sound only, or being badly lit. The automatic subtitles rendered Mike Pence as "my parents", "my pants" or "pissed".
Respondents were generally disappointed, especially with Kamala Harris. This might be in part because Pence is a known quantity whereas Harris is relatively new to most Americans. The Supreme Court question was raised more than once. People wanted to know what Harris would do as President herself, not the Biden policy.
The highlight of the focus group was Frank Luntz calling out one of his respondents as having lied about being undecided (Trump-leaning might understate it).
The livestream ended with a shot of an "update available" window!
"Coronavirus restrictions are to be further tightened in parts of England early next week, with the closure of bars and restaurants a possibility, the BBC has been told.
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457377
The government needs to do a better job of explaining the rationale behind the restrictions, not least because otherwise the public cannot be expected to remember a long list of apparently arbitrary rules, let alone obey them. It is telling that Cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister himself often get the rules wrong when asked obvious, straightforward questions.
"Coronavirus restrictions are to be further tightened in parts of England early next week, with the closure of bars and restaurants a possibility, the BBC has been told.
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457377
The government needs to do a better job of explaining the rationale behind the restrictions, not least because otherwise the public cannot be expected to remember a long list of apparently arbitrary rules, let alone obey them. It is telling that Cabinet ministers and even the Prime Minister himself often get the rules wrong when asked obvious, straightforward questions.
That's gloriously understated.
It all went wrong the moment Johnson introduced the nation to 5 Levels and then said we fitted none of them but were halfway between one and another. You couldn't make it up if you tried.
You'd think Luntz would have edited out the echo before the start. The automatic subtitles have Mike Pence as "my pants". Only one respondent thought Harris won.
The Luntz focus group should be required viewing for everyone who thinks Zoom calls are a good substitute for in-person meetings. Almost every shortcoming was illustrated, from speakers not appearing, or appearing in sound only, or being badly lit. The automatic subtitles rendered Mike Pence as "my parents", "my pants" or "pissed".
Respondents were generally disappointed, especially with Kamala Harris. This might be in part because Pence is a known quantity whereas Harris is relatively new to most Americans. The Supreme Court question was raised more than once. People wanted to know what Harris would do as President herself, not the Biden policy...
Imagine the headlines if she’d taken that bait.
The debate was always likely to be a disappointment, though, as why would a VP take risks when the ticket has a clear lead ? She did what she had to do.
As 538 noted, “ the first rule of being a VP is to do no harm.”.
I foresee tonight's debate having few long term consequences on the Presidential race.
Kamala is very far from being BLM, and has a record as a Prosecutor, so I think Pence will struggle to pin urban violence on her.
Pence is not Trump, and is a far more measured character, and therefore I don't expect Ms Harris to land many blows. (Simply: she's not in court.)
A good performance from Pence though could ensure he is early frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination, assuming Trump loses, remembering of course VP Mondale was Democratic nominee in 1984 after Carter lost in 1980
If Trump loses, Pence is going to be off the pace. The association with Trump just won't help him for 2024.
If Trump loses the Democrats will likely be in for 2 or even 3 presidential elections as the GOP were after the defeat of Carter and the Democrats after a single White House term in 1980.
In which case which other ambitious Republican would bother challenging Pence for the 2024 GOP nomination unless Biden and Harris make an absolute pigs ear of the next 4 years? They will build their careers and polish their CVs in Congress or state politics instead and wait until 2028 or 2032 for a presidential run
It is worth remembering at this juncture that the Republicans have won the popular vote just once since the end of the Cold War, and then only narrowly. They are resting on a slim, ageing and increasingly isolated segment of the vote. It’s the American Electoral system that keeps them in contention for political honours.
Whoever Trump’s replacement is, if the Republicans are to continue as a serious party they will need to find a way to broaden the party’s appeal.
"Coronavirus restrictions are to be further tightened in parts of England early next week, with the closure of bars and restaurants a possibility, the BBC has been told.
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457377
Unless you have childcare issues or need to test your eyesight, of course.
A haemagglutination test for rapid detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.02.20205831v1 Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, detection of seroconversion after vaccination, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests have a long history in blood typing, and general serology through linkage of reporter molecules to the red cell surface. They do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied as a Point of Care Test (POCT). We describe a red cell agglutination test for the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD). We show that the Haemagglutination Test (HAT) has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. The HAT can be titrated, detects rising titres in the first five days of hospital admission, correlates well with a commercial test that detects antibodies to the RBD, and can be applied as a point of care test. The developing reagent is composed of a previously described nanobody to a conserved glycophorin A epitope on red cells, linked to the RBD from SARS-CoV-2. It can be lyophilised for ease of shipping. We have scaled up production of this reagent to one gram, which is sufficient for ten million tests, at a cost of ~0.27 UK pence per test well. Aliquots of this reagent are ready to be supplied to qualified groups anywhere in the world that need to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, but do not have the facilities for high throughput commercial tests.
Fascinating that when asked if Indiana should ban all abortion Pence decided to answer another question. "Yes, womenfolk should rear Godly children and stay in the kitchen" may have put people off. So he talked about something else.
I foresee tonight's debate having few long term consequences on the Presidential race.
Kamala is very far from being BLM, and has a record as a Prosecutor, so I think Pence will struggle to pin urban violence on her.
Pence is not Trump, and is a far more measured character, and therefore I don't expect Ms Harris to land many blows. (Simply: she's not in court.)
A good performance from Pence though could ensure he is early frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination, assuming Trump loses, remembering of course VP Mondale was Democratic nominee in 1984 after Carter lost in 1980
If Trump loses, Pence is going to be off the pace. The association with Trump just won't help him for 2024.
If Trump loses the Democrats will likely be in for 2 or even 3 presidential elections as the GOP were after the defeat of Carter and the Democrats after a single White House term in 1980.
In which case which other ambitious Republican would bother challenging Pence for the 2024 GOP nomination unless Biden and Harris make an absolute pigs ear of the next 4 years? They will build their careers and polish their CVs in Congress or state politics instead and wait until 2028 or 2032 for a presidential run
It is worth remembering at this juncture that the Republicans have won the popular vote just once since the end of the Cold War, and then only narrowly. They are resting on a slim, ageing and increasingly isolated segment of the vote. It’s the American Electoral system that keeps them in contention for political honours.
Whoever Trump’s replacement is, if the Republicans are to continue as a serious party they will need to find a way to broaden the party’s appeal.
...or gerrymander the system to further their already sizeable unfair advantage.
Kamala Harris did what she had to do . Pence needed to win this convincingly and to have Harris make a gaff. Interesting gender disparity in the CNN poll but given women vote more than men trouncing Pence there will hardly do the ticket any harm .
Kamala Harris did what she had to do . Pence needed to win this convincingly and to have Harris make a gaff. Interesting gender disparity in the CNN poll but given women vote more than men trouncing Pence there will hardly do the ticket any harm .
That the PB on-the-night commentators were very heavily male occurs to be as a possible reason why they were off the mark.
It will give a whole new meaning to doing politics on-the-fly
Or betting on the fly
If there is a fly on head repeat in the next Trump debate the big giveaway will be the president's lizard tongue reaching up to catch the fly for him to eat.
Which shows the huge dangers of calling states early this election.
Considering they not only held the Senate (which was expected) but they actually made gains it was an amazing night for them wasn't it? As far as the Senate is concerned.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Good to see you back! How is the world of advertising coping with the virus? 😷
About the same as the medical profession. For film or Hitchcock fans note the dissolve into the skeleton just before the final shot. One of the most chilling endings to a film I can remember
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
I think that's a great article. It should seriously concern Democrats that they're so poor at presenting their case.
It's amazing that the debate on the Supreme Court has been moved on to whether Biden will pack the court, rather than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the threat that poses to things the American public want: healthcare, freedom of choice on abortion, fair elections, etc.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
if you can't come up with a better reason not to like her than "she looks impatient", then sorry but guilty as charged I would say.
"Coronavirus restrictions are to be further tightened in parts of England early next week, with the closure of bars and restaurants a possibility, the BBC has been told.
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457377
I think the 3 level restriction system (which is basically 1 pandemic normal and 1 level of personal social restriction and 1 level of business restriction prior to full lockdown) may be a level short - looking at the current situation I think two grades of further business tightening prior to full lockdown would be appropriate and would allow grading and minimisation of the business impact of restrictions.
So the levels would, at a high level, be: full lockdown (similar to March), full closure of business social, outdoor only business social, restricted personal social, base restrictions. These need not necessarily exactly match, in all respects, what we have now. These could be targeted at areas or at particular cohorts.
So full business social closures could apply, for instance to a subset of wards in the major northern and Midlands university cities (plus Exeter) or could specifically ban all students and staff of X, y, z universities from entering bars or sit down restaurants, with an outdoors only ring thrown slightly wider - perhaps authority wide in the restrictions.
Eventually authority specific, one day pub closures, might be the way of getting some degree of attendance at outdoor sports going again.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
if you can't come up with a better reason not to like her than "she looks impatient", then sorry but guilty as charged I would say.
Having watched parts of the debate, it seems to me that Pence has been heavily trained & coached on how not to have mannerisms when speaking/debating in public that might annoy. Hence the plastic politician effect. Quite common in politics in the US, I understand.
Harris has had less of that, I think. Public speaking training - obviously. But less of the turn-them-into-an-anodyne-waxwork thing.
Perkins may not have been the world's greatest actor but he was definitely the creepiest! I thought his performance in The Trial was even better than his more famous Psycho role. Interesting guy too.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
She's always trying to emote but it feels too forced.
Assuming Biden wins it's going to be a problem for the Dems when he retires because she's not bad enough to clearly need to be ditched but also not good enough to win against a competent opponent.
Yes, it’s a tricky one for the Democrats. I know we have CNN sample polls being posted to give the impression Harris steamrollered over Pence but I think she would become unpopular pretty quickly, a lot because, as you said, she tries to emote when clearly she doesn’t care (I found her answer to the Kayla Mueller thing cringeworthy - yup, like Joe really gave a f•ck).
One thing to consider (betting wise) in terms of an October surprise is concerns over Biden’s health suddenly spring up because there will be a lot more focus on Harris and, based on last night, she could become a liability.
If I was the Republicans, meanwhile, I would be doing clips of all her “Joe...” clips from last night and interspersing them with what she said about him during the nomination run.
Thanks also for the Vox link - I think that’s pretty fair. What I remember from the debate this morning is the $2000/4000 lines do Biden putting up taxes but I can’t remember one of Harris’ lines
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
I think that's a great article. It should seriously concern Democrats that they're so poor at presenting their case.
It's amazing that the debate on the Supreme Court has been moved on to whether Biden will pack the court, rather than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the threat that poses to things the American public want: healthcare, freedom of choice on abortion, fair elections, etc.
I agree, its an excellent piece of analysis. The one criticism I would make is that while they picked up on the Pence habit of talking over the female moderator and Harris being annoying to women they seemed to have underplayed it. The gender differentiation showing in the polling is massive and it is clear women really didn't like it.
Once again Harris seems to have underperformed a bit given her skills and experience in litigation. I expected her to do better. If I was going to completely over generalise it is the roll of the prosecutor to be steady, predictable, measured and to present the case fairly. It's defence counsel who have to use the razzmatazz to divert, confuse or obfuscate.
She really should be picking up on failures to answer the question though. That's basic.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Does it ?
Well, yes or at least it appears - you said “perhaps a gendered response” which suggests criticism of Harris’performance is coming from a gender standpoint.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Does it ?
Well, yes or at least it appears - you said “perhaps a gendered response” which suggests criticism of Harris’performance is coming from a gender standpoint.
I wasn't criticising your reaction (hence 'perhaps') - rather pointing out that it's likely very different to the reaction of the half of the population which isn't male, as the polls bear out.
I wonder in what universe the VP debate had an impact on the race, even if they failed so badly they had to resign the ticket, it wouldn’t change much.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
if you can't come up with a better reason not to like her than "she looks impatient", then sorry but guilty as charged I would say.
That’s up to you but that’s your own opinion and not some standard of truth. You are not exactly coming from an unbiased standpoint.
The comments about Harris’ mannerisms have been a constant criticism throughout her campaigns and seen to be the biggest drawback in a way it wasn’t if Warren and Klob. It was clear from the panel group’s reactions at the time, they really didn’t like them.
Good to see you back! How is the world of advertising coping with the virus? 😷
About the same as the medical profession. For film or Hitchcock fans note the dissolve into the skeleton just before the final shot. One of the most chilling endings to a film I can remember
Thanks. I’ve never noticed that before, and it’s a film I’ve seen at least half a dozen times. The last time I saw it was at the Camden Roundhouse with a full orchestra playing the Herrmann score live.
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
I think that's a great article. It should seriously concern Democrats that they're so poor at presenting their case.
It's amazing that the debate on the Supreme Court has been moved on to whether Biden will pack the court, rather than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the threat that poses to things the American public want: healthcare, freedom of choice on abortion, fair elections, etc.
TBF it's not like they lack talented people who can get frame an argument for swing voters; Bill Clinton could, Obama could, Biden's not too bad at it, Buttigieg and KLOBUCHAR are excellent. The problem is that if Biden wins he now has an heir apparent who can't, and she has a historic aspect to her candidacy (first black women) that's going to make her hard to replace with someone who can.
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
I think that's a great article. It should seriously concern Democrats that they're so poor at presenting their case.
It's amazing that the debate on the Supreme Court has been moved on to whether Biden will pack the court, rather than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the threat that poses to things the American public want: healthcare, freedom of choice on abortion, fair elections, etc.
I agree, its an excellent piece of analysis. The one criticism I would make is that while they picked up on the Pence habit of talking over the female moderator and Harris being annoying to women they seemed to have underplayed it. The gender differentiation showing in the polling is massive and it is clear women really didn't like it.
Once again Harris seems to have underperformed a bit given her skills and experience in litigation. I expected her to do better. If I was going to completely over generalise it is the roll of the prosecutor to be steady, predictable, measured and to present the case fairly. It's defence counsel who have to use the razzmatazz to divert, confuse or obfuscate.
She really should be picking up on failures to answer the question though. That's basic.
I think that’s a UK view of the prosecutor David but not in the US. It’s a political job and your aim (often) is to use it as a springboard. Also, the guilty plea rate is often high because prosecutors use the threat of draconian sentences to persuade people to plead guilty.
I wonder in what universe the VP debate had an impact on the race, even if they failed so badly they had to resign the ticket, it wouldn’t change much.
Dan Quayle tested that proposition to destruction.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Does it ?
Well, yes or at least it appears - you said “perhaps a gendered response” which suggests criticism of Harris’performance is coming from a gender standpoint.
I wasn't criticising your reaction (hence 'perhaps') - rather pointing out that it's likely very different to the reaction of the half of the population which isn't male, as the polls bear out.
TBF the polling will at least partly be reflecting the fact that Biden-Harris has a bigger lead among women than among men, so perhaps a partisan response?
I'm wondering though if "impatient" is a bad look for a woman, but not a bad look for a man. Haven't seen any of the debate, so can't really comment. It is just theatre, someone pulled faces, someone else had a fly land on them. I wish we just didn't pay attention to such crap, are we 6-year-olds? If debates have to happen, they should be audio only. Just like when orchestras audition new musicians.
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
I wonder in what universe the VP debate had an impact on the race, even if they failed so badly they had to resign the ticket, it wouldn’t change much.
One way or the other, the election is all about Trump.
I’m up because I’m not feeling great so decided to watch a bit of this.
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
Not really. I think it has to do more with her previous role, hence the comment I made at the time last night. And Harris has always been criticised for a number of her mannerisms during the Democratic race, it was one of the key things voters didn’t like about her. No one said that re Warren and Klob.
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
Does it ?
Well, yes or at least it appears - you said “perhaps a gendered response” which suggests criticism of Harris’performance is coming from a gender standpoint.
I wasn't criticising your reaction (hence 'perhaps') - rather pointing out that it's likely very different to the reaction of the half of the population which isn't male, as the polls bear out.
Ah sorry Nigel, my mistake so apologies. I’d want to see a bit more on the gender split than a CNN poll...
They have a handful sat on the apron of the BA maintenance facility at Cardiff Airport. These planes were only just refurbished and recommissioned. I flew on one of them from the US in February.
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
How anyone can look at the figures and conclude that the problem (of rising case numbers) is hospitality venues and not universities is a mystery. And given the conditions that most university students live in, there is absolutely zero to stop it spreading among them until it burns out. Even under the most restrictive lockdowns.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
They have a handful sat on the apron of the BA maintenance facility at Cardiff Airport. These planes were only just refurbished and recommissioned. I flew on one of them from the US in February.
End of an impressive era for the big bird.
I have flown Heathrow to Sydney, Heathrow to Buenos Aires, Heathrow to Vancouver, Beijing to Heathrow, Tokyo to Heathrow and many more flights on this great aircraft
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
How anyone can look at the figures and conclude that the problem (of rising case numbers) is hospitality venues and not universities is a mystery. And given the conditions that most university students live in, there is absolutely zero to stop it spreading among them until it burns out. Even under the most restrictive lockdowns.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
Quite a bit of university accommodation is *designed* so that people *have* to mix together.
Yes, that is the actual justification given for communal kitchens etc. Apparently, they were "worried" about students living in isolation in their own little flats.
The Gods must be laughing about that.
Being way cheaper to build and maintain is purely accidental. Of course.
This cry of "fake news!" is not a promising start for the Spectator: Pence takes Harris to the cleaners in VP debate But most of the media will fashion Harris into a girlboss who resisted Pence’s mansplaining effors [sic]
Just watching the re-run of the debate on CNN and I’m surprised that the poll doesn’t show Harris winning by more .
Really impressed with her , very passionate compared to the mannequin Pence. Going after the administration on healthcare several times was a very good strategy .
Kamala is quite sassy isn’t she? And of course very attractive which shouldn’t matter but does.
Not sure why PB had decided it knows better than the data.
The Venn diagram of people who predicted the GOP would retain their majority in the midterms and who think Biden bettors are letting their emotions cloud their thinking is a circle.
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
How anyone can look at the figures and conclude that the problem (of rising case numbers) is hospitality venues and not universities is a mystery. And given the conditions that most university students live in, there is absolutely zero to stop it spreading among them until it burns out. Even under the most restrictive lockdowns.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
Quite a bit of university accommodation is *designed* so that people *have* to mix together.
Yes, that is the actual justification given for communal kitchens etc. Apparently, they were "worried" about students living in isolation in their own little flats.
The Gods must be laughing about that.
Being way cheaper to build and maintain is purely accidental. Of course.
Have we had a single report of a student being hospitalised with covid in this current "wave"?
This cry of "fake news!" is not a promising start for the Spectator: Pence takes Harris to the cleaners in VP debate But most of the media will fashion Harris into a girlboss who resisted Pence’s mansplaining effors [sic]
This cry of "fake news!" is not a promising start for the Spectator: Pence takes Harris to the cleaners in VP debate But most of the media will fashion Harris into a girlboss who resisted Pence’s mansplaining effors [sic]
The irony seems lost on Amber Athey or maybe the whole article is meant to be ironic?
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
How anyone can look at the figures and conclude that the problem (of rising case numbers) is hospitality venues and not universities is a mystery. And given the conditions that most university students live in, there is absolutely zero to stop it spreading among them until it burns out. Even under the most restrictive lockdowns.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
My daughter is now self-isolating because one of the other students in her university flat has tested positive. Their shared bathroom does not have a window. It seems inevitable that the other four in the flat will catch it from the positive case.
Presumably one of those four will eventually exhibit symptoms and test positive towards the end of their 14 day isolation period - resetting the clock for another 14 days.
I would have thought that if they were trying to control the spread that they would put positive cases into a designated hall of residence, separate from their close contacts. There is a bizarre mix of fatalism and horror at the results of that fatalism.
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
How anyone can look at the figures and conclude that the problem (of rising case numbers) is hospitality venues and not universities is a mystery. And given the conditions that most university students live in, there is absolutely zero to stop it spreading among them until it burns out. Even under the most restrictive lockdowns.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
Civil Servant: The numbers for the university towns are horrendous.
Senior aide: Gavin can't survive another disaster on his watch and then we might have to put someone in cabinet who knows what they are doing. Look at the numbers again.
Civil Servant: Oh yes, now I peer at them from another angle, it looks like pubs are spreading the virus more than universities.
Comments
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1314016290709762048?s=20
It’s funny with what Luntz’s focus group said because it’s my reaction. She looks impatient and the purses lips don’t help.
I think it comes back to being a Prosecutor in the US. You’re use to steamrolling the other side and bullying them so it’s a bit disconcerting when you have to actually debate them on equal terms
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1314029118279897089
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
The fly - or the giggling - will be the takeaway.
Assuming Biden wins it's going to be a problem for the Dems when he retires because she's not bad enough to clearly need to be ditched but also not good enough to win against a competent opponent.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/10/7/21507162/vice-presidential-debate-pence-wins?utm_campaign=mattyglesias&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
Kamala was solid enough, she didn't gaffe and per CNN she came out with her favourables enhanced. But Pence never missed a chance to say something swing voters care about, Kamala missed loads.
https://twitter.com/KrutikaKuppalli/status/1314030594351824896
There could also be a ban on overnight stays away from home."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54457377
Respondents were generally disappointed, especially with Kamala Harris. This might be in part because Pence is a known quantity whereas Harris is relatively new to most Americans. The Supreme Court question was raised more than once. People wanted to know what Harris would do as President herself, not the Biden policy.
The highlight of the focus group was Frank Luntz calling out one of his respondents as having lied about being undecided (Trump-leaning might understate it).
The livestream ended with a shot of an "update available" window!
It all went wrong the moment Johnson introduced the nation to 5 Levels and then said we fitted none of them but were halfway between one and another. You couldn't make it up if you tried.
The debate was always likely to be a disappointment, though, as why would a VP take risks when the ticket has a clear lead ? She did what she had to do.
As 538 noted, “ the first rule of being a VP is to do no harm.”.
Whoever Trump’s replacement is, if the Republicans are to continue as a serious party they will need to find a way to broaden the party’s appeal.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.02.20205831v1
Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, detection of seroconversion after vaccination, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests have a long history in blood typing, and general serology through linkage of reporter molecules to the red cell surface. They do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied as a Point of Care Test (POCT). We describe a red cell agglutination test for the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD). We show that the Haemagglutination Test (HAT) has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. The HAT can be titrated, detects rising titres in the first five days of hospital admission, correlates well with a commercial test that detects antibodies to the RBD, and can be applied as a point of care test. The developing reagent is composed of a previously described nanobody to a conserved glycophorin A epitope on red cells, linked to the RBD from SARS-CoV-2. It can be lyophilised for ease of shipping. We have scaled up production of this reagent to one gram, which is sufficient for ten million tests, at a cost of ~0.27 UK pence per test well. Aliquots of this reagent are ready to be supplied to qualified groups anywhere in the world that need to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, but do not have the facilities for high throughput commercial tests.
I think Pence has a sub conjunctival haemorrhage rather than conjunctivitis. They are generally harmless, sometimes from coughing.
Can't wait.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2077681/#Comment_2077681
Which shows the huge dangers of calling states early this election.
Or betting on the fly
Just sayin'..
However, it was interesting during the debate, on Luntz’s Twitter feed, and the panel’s comments, the pro-Harris comments were all essentially accusing the panel of not liking a woman of colour, or that they couldn’t take a b•tch face so I guess that’s the line of attack If anyone criticises Harris (which your post demonstrates)
What a bad joke the US system is.
It's amazing that the debate on the Supreme Court has been moved on to whether Biden will pack the court, rather than the hypocrisy of the Republicans and the threat that poses to things the American public want: healthcare, freedom of choice on abortion, fair elections, etc.
https://twitter.com/anyabike/status/1314100080983638017?s=21
So the levels would, at a high level, be: full lockdown (similar to March), full closure of business social, outdoor only business social, restricted personal social, base restrictions. These need not necessarily exactly match, in all respects, what we have now. These could be targeted at areas or at particular cohorts.
So full business social closures could apply, for instance to a subset of wards in the major northern and Midlands university cities (plus Exeter) or could specifically ban all students and staff of X, y, z universities from entering bars or sit down restaurants, with an outdoors only ring thrown slightly wider - perhaps authority wide in the restrictions.
Eventually authority specific, one day pub closures, might be the way of getting some degree of attendance at outdoor sports going again.
https://www.flightradar24.com/BAW400/25b6c07e
https://www.flightradar24.com/BAW747/25b6c7c4
Harris has had less of that, I think. Public speaking training - obviously. But less of the turn-them-into-an-anodyne-waxwork thing.
Perkins may not have been the world's greatest actor but he was definitely the creepiest! I thought his performance in The Trial was even better than his more famous Psycho role. Interesting guy too.
Out of curiosity, what the fuck are those charities saying about this case?
One thing to consider (betting wise) in terms of an October surprise is concerns over Biden’s health suddenly spring up because there will be a lot more focus on Harris and, based on last night, she could become a liability.
If I was the Republicans, meanwhile, I would be doing clips of all her “Joe...” clips from last night and interspersing them with what she said about him during the nomination run.
Thanks also for the Vox link - I think that’s pretty fair. What I remember from the debate this morning is the $2000/4000 lines do Biden putting up taxes but I can’t remember one of Harris’ lines
Once again Harris seems to have underperformed a bit given her skills and experience in litigation. I expected her to do better. If I was going to completely over generalise it is the roll of the prosecutor to be steady, predictable, measured and to present the case fairly. It's defence counsel who have to use the razzmatazz to divert, confuse or obfuscate.
She really should be picking up on failures to answer the question though. That's basic.
GOP running out of days and events to turn this around.
The comments about Harris’ mannerisms have been a constant criticism throughout her campaigns and seen to be the biggest drawback in a way it wasn’t if Warren and Klob. It was clear from the panel group’s reactions at the time, they really didn’t like them.
I stand for justice
You are insulting the law
He/She is destroying society
I'm wondering though if "impatient" is a bad look for a woman, but not a bad look for a man.
Haven't seen any of the debate, so can't really comment. It is just theatre, someone pulled faces, someone else had a fly land on them. I wish we just didn't pay attention to such crap, are we 6-year-olds?
If debates have to happen, they should be audio only. Just like when orchestras audition new musicians.
For the strategy the government is pursuing (which increasingly I don't agree with) then opening the universities this autumn has been a disaster.
Nottingham as an example was running at around 12-15 cases a day in early to mid September and then suddenly kaboom! Now around 300-odd.
Now, if these are genuine cases (and not students who have normal freshers cold and flu who are getting tested and being told covid positive (i.e. false positives) then reopening unis this autumn was a massive blunder. It has bought the virus into towns that basically were running at a very low level of infection.
It might work out as this will burn itself out amongst the students, if they are mainly kept on campus, and they will get some level of immunity. BUT, this is not the strategy of the government. It is the opposite of what they claim to be trying to achieve.
Flown the world over in 747s
https://www.flightradar24.com/BAW747/25b6c7c4
https://spectator.us/pence-harris-vice-presidential-debate-winner/
They have a handful sat on the apron of the BA maintenance facility at Cardiff Airport. These planes were only just refurbished and recommissioned. I flew on one of them from the US in February.
End of an impressive era for the big bird.
(I'm not paying much attention to these absurd rules that some universities seem to be trying about telling students to stay in their rooms at all times without having any social contact with the people they live directly with)
Much nostalgia today
Kamala is quite sassy isn’t she? And of course very attractive which shouldn’t matter but does.
Not sure why PB had decided it knows better than the data.
Yes, that is the actual justification given for communal kitchens etc. Apparently, they were "worried" about students living in isolation in their own little flats.
The Gods must be laughing about that.
Being way cheaper to build and maintain is purely accidental. Of course.
Pence takes Harris to the cleaners in VP debate
But most of the media will fashion Harris into a girlboss who resisted Pence’s mansplaining effors [sic]
Really impressed with her , very passionate compared to the mannequin Pence. Going after the administration on healthcare several times was a very good strategy .
And that issue really hurt the GOP in 2018.
Presumably one of those four will eventually exhibit symptoms and test positive towards the end of their 14 day isolation period - resetting the clock for another 14 days.
I would have thought that if they were trying to control the spread that they would put positive cases into a designated hall of residence, separate from their close contacts. There is a bizarre mix of fatalism and horror at the results of that fatalism.
Senior aide: Gavin can't survive another disaster on his watch and then we might have to put someone in cabinet who knows what they are doing. Look at the numbers again.
Civil Servant: Oh yes, now I peer at them from another angle, it looks like pubs are spreading the virus more than universities.
Senior aide: See, that wasn't difficult was it?