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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
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.
Communal student kitchens are so filthy that they probably constitute a biohazard in their own right. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Covid-19 isn't eventually traced back to a left-over vegan lasagna left in the washing up bowl for seven weeks at the Wuhan University halls of residence.
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.
To win the Presidency yes, if Trump is defeated heavily.
However remember unlike the UK where the House of Commons is the only elected element of the UK government, the US Federal government has 3 elected elements, the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate and as the GOP proved during the Obama and Clinton years and would likely prove again after the midterms during a Biden Presidency they can wield a lot of power by winning a majority in Congress even if they are out of power in the White House
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Biden may want to run for a second term if he wins big, despite his age he would fancy himself as the Democrat Reagan.
If he did and was re elected that would mean Harris would have to wait until 2028 to be Democratic nominee as Reagan's VP Bush senior had to wait 8 years to be GOP nominee after Reagan won
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.
For Harris to have behaved as an inquisitorial prosecutor in the debate would have run the risk of alienating many independents. She played it safe. It may not have been satisfying for either her or her suppporters, but politically it made complete sense. I suspect the most played clip of a night that will be quickly forgotten is the one of her calling the Trump/Pence response to Covid the greatest failure in presidential history. She did her job.
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression. TBH, seems a cold fish. The sort of person who in Puritan days, 'banned bear baiting not because it was cruel to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators'.
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
You provide the perfect explanation for the competence attack line that Labour is using so effectively against Johnson.
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.
Communal student kitchens are so filthy that they probably constitute a biohazard in their own right. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Covid-19 isn't eventually traced back to a left-over vegan lasagna left in the washing up bowl for seven weeks at the Wuhan University halls of residence.
COVID would probably catch something nasty in a student kitchen.
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression.
Dunno, but as far as framing issues and getting messages out to swing voters goes he totally out-politicsed Kamala.
Getting messages across isn't the only goal of the debate, and as far as we can tell Kamala succeeded in the things she needed to do the most: She avoided derailing the campaign, she improved her personal favourability, and she gave the impression that she'd make a competent VP. That was all fine. But having her entrenched in the "next nominee" spot is liable to be a problem for the Democrats, IMHO.
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.
To win the Presidency yes, if Trump is defeated heavily.
However remember unlike the UK where the House of Commons is the only elected element of the UK government, the US Federal government has 3 elected elements, the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate and as the GOP proved during the Obama and Clinton years and would likely prove again after the midterms during a Biden Presidency they can wield a lot of power by winning a majority in Congress even if they are out of power in the White House
Mitch McConnell recognised that of the three branches the Senate had the strongest bias in favour of the Republicans and he set about increasing the power of the Senate.
The Biden Presidency will struggle if it doesn't have control of the Senate. It probably struggles anyway - the problems it faces are vast - but a Republican majority in the Senate will break new boundaries in ways that will somehow manage to astonish.
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!
At any other time in history being caught on national television being exposed as a liar and a cheat would be an unendurable embarrassment.
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
You provide the perfect explanation for the competence attack line that Labour is using so effectively against Johnson.
Labour literally has accepted Johnson won the last election and our candidate was poor, start with Brexit where they now back Johnson's (original) deal
Qantas to Bangkok (Christmas day - cabin decorated, nice Christmas lunch) Also Qantas across the Pacific in the posh seats Cathay to Hong Kong (First landing at Kai Tak "gosh, aren't those buildings close....and I'm on the upper deck!") Pan Am to Heathrow - upstairs in the bubble (might have been a -100) Stewardesses ancient Air India to Delhi - very long take off run and slow climb - pilot "We are very heavy" BA to too many to count - in all 3 cabins (at the time) Virgin, ditto Sabena to New York - got to visit the cockpit Singapore to & from SIN - engine failure on take off once - favourite seat 17K upstairs Air China Peking to Shanghai - all economy layout - "Here's your ticket, and here's your life insurance policy" Lufthansa to and from Singapore Malaysian to & from KL Continental to & from Houston
I remember visiting London in 1969 and seeing a Pan Am 747 - it looked huge in comparison to everything else - and because it was so big appeared to be moving slowly
I'll miss it - especially the -200 which I remain convinced was quieter than the -300 & -400 - although the 380 had succeeded it as my favourite plane to fly - and that's not too long for the skies either.....
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.
To win the Presidency yes, if Trump is defeated heavily.
However remember unlike the UK where the House of Commons is the only elected element of the UK government, the US Federal government has 3 elected elements, the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate and as the GOP proved during the Obama and Clinton years and would likely prove again after the midterms during a Biden Presidency they can wield a lot of power by winning a majority in Congress even if they are out of power in the White House
Mitch McConnell recognised that of the three branches the Senate had the strongest bias in favour of the Republicans and he set about increasing the power of the Senate.
The Biden Presidency will struggle if it doesn't have control of the Senate. It probably struggles anyway - the problems it faces are vast - but a Republican majority in the Senate will break new boundaries in ways that will somehow manage to astonish.
Indeed, the Reagan and Obama presidencies got a lot done as despite the fact the opposing parties controlled the House for most of their presidencies their parties controlled the Senate for the majority of their terms in office.
Bush Jnr and LBJ are examples of Presidents who were able to get their agenda through more effectively than most as their party controlled Congress for most of their period in office.
To make significant changes in US policy your party not only has to win the Presidency but Congress too and then make judicial appointments to start to shift the SC in its favour as well
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression.
Dunno, but as far as framing issues and getting messages out to swing voters goes he totally out-politicsed Kamala.
Getting messages across isn't the only goal of the debate, and as far as we can tell Kamala succeeded in the things she needed to do the most: She avoided derailing the campaign, she improved her personal favourability, and she gave the impression that she'd make a competent VP. That was all fine. But having her entrenched in the "next nominee" spot is liable to be a problem for the Democrats, IMHO.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
On their way to Kemble. Isn't there an aircraft breaker at Kemble?
Yes. Air Salvage International
Still off topic.
I have done some work with eCube in St Athan. I saw some A320s, 777s and remarkably a number of Hercules go through, but never the "Big Bird", although I know they have put a few through the shredder.
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression.
Dunno, but as far as framing issues and getting messages out to swing voters goes he totally out-politicsed Kamala.
Getting messages across isn't the only goal of the debate, and as far as we can tell Kamala succeeded in the things she needed to do the most: She avoided derailing the campaign, she improved her personal favourability, and she gave the impression that she'd make a competent VP. That was all fine. But having her entrenched in the "next nominee" spot is liable to be a problem for the Democrats, IMHO.
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
You provide the perfect explanation for the competence attack line that Labour is using so effectively against Johnson.
How do you define effective? How many percentage points down on the last election polls should the Tories now be polling? How many fewer favourables should Johnson now have?
Comres: Final 2019 poll Tories 41% Most recent poll Tories 42%
Ipsos Mori: Final 2019 poll Johnson 36% Satisfied Most recent poll Johnson 40% Satisfied
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.
It seems to me rather premature to write off Harris's capacity as a future president on the basis of one VP debate. Assuming Biden wins, she'll have a few years to prove herself (or not), and if she fails I guess the Democrats will move on to somebody else.
It's not just one VP debate, it's a whole primary campaign. She's got poise, she's got confidence, she ticks all the boxes, but she lacks an instinct that successful presidents and some of the other contenders have. Maybe she can learn it, I doubt it.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression.
Dunno, but as far as framing issues and getting messages out to swing voters goes he totally out-politicsed Kamala.
Getting messages across isn't the only goal of the debate, and as far as we can tell Kamala succeeded in the things she needed to do the most: She avoided derailing the campaign, she improved her personal favourability, and she gave the impression that she'd make a competent VP. That was all fine. But having her entrenched in the "next nominee" spot is liable to be a problem for the Democrats, IMHO.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
Well most will at least know his name, as he was Vice President for 8 years. But I agree that most Europeans will know litte more about him than that.
I'd say it sounds like a non-league side in the second-leg of a cup tie against Premiership opposition, going into half-time 0-0, away from home, having had the best of the play, but being 4-0 down from the first-leg.
Viewed in isolation you can appreciate their technical merits, but in the wider context it does nothing to stop them sliding to defeat.
Though the non-league side won the previous round against the odds, so everyone can't help but watch and wonder whether something unbelievable is about to happen.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
One big difference between the 2020 and the 2016 campaign is, four years ago there were lots of comments on forums from people who are Democrat voters but were criticising Mrs. Clinton. "She'll start WW III", email scandal etc. This time I'm not seeing any of this. The Biden critics are all clear Trumpers/Republicans. Those to the left of Biden are biting their tongue
On the question of tightening the lockdown measures I expect HMG to receive wider approval for tightening with support for the 'herd immunity' strategy to be very low, if high in parts of the conservative party
It is ironic on the day Starmer questions the 10.00pm curfew Drakeford, his Welsh labour colleague, affirmed that it continues here in Wales
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
You provide the perfect explanation for the competence attack line that Labour is using so effectively against Johnson.
How do you define effective? How many percentage points down on the last election polls should the Tories now be polling? How many fewer favourables should Johnson now have?
Comres: Final 2019 poll Tories 41% Most recent poll Tories 42%
Ipsos Mori: Final 2019 poll Johnson 36% Satisfied Most recent poll Johnson 40% Satisfied
The Tories got 44% last year and on most current polling the Tories would lose their majority and either Starmer would become PM or the Tories need the DUP again to stay in power, Boris is still in contention but he is no longer far ahead as he was against Corbyn
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
Well most will at least know his name, as he was Vice President for 8 years. But I agree that most Europeans will know litte more about him than that.
I very much doubt that many here in the UK will even know he was Vice President for 8 years
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
The GOP wanted to portray Harris as some crazed leftie who would be pulling the strings . They failed , this was Harris’s chance to really introduce herself to the American public .
This wasn’t about scoring some knock out punches. Her favourability went up and a clear majority though she could take over the role of President if needed .
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
For you and the bubble yes, but apart from most people thinking Trump is barking they will wake up the day after the election just pleased the Trump monster has finally been slain
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
Well most will at least know his name, as he was Vice President for 8 years. But I agree that most Europeans will know litte more about him than that.
I very much doubt that many here in the UK will even know he was Vice President for 8 years
The interest is just not there
You do not have to be interested in politics to recognise his name as a former VP, which is a lesser hurdle than answering "Who was Obama's vice president?" correctly. Anyway I am agreeeing with you except for that point.
The GOP wanted to portray Harris as some crazed leftie who would be pulling the strings . They failed , this was Harris’s chance to really introduce herself to the American public .
This wasn’t about scoring some knock out punches. Her favourability went up and a clear majority though she could take over the role of President if needed .
Job done .
Yes, it's hard to what better outcome there could have been for her.
Some PBers are a bit down on her this morning for some reason.
I do love that the "Proud Boys", chastened by loads of #ProudBoys gay pics on Twitter have changed their name to ........"Leather Men"!
Long ago and far away the US multinational P&G balked at it's UK subsidiary launching a dishwashing liquid named after their popular UK bar & toilet soap brand "Fairy".
"You can't call it "Fairy Liquid"!
"Why?"
Awkward silence.
In the end a compromise was agreed - two test markets, one with the UK's preferred name, "Fairy Liquid", the other with the US alternative......."Gay".
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
Dubya then Blair landslide in 2001? Obama then Cameron?
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
Dubya then Blair landslide in 2001? Obama then Cameron?
Those were the 2 most recent exceptions though of course even there Blair was re elected in 2005 after backing Dubya's Iraq War policy and Cameron was a very liberal Tory and ideologically certainly far closer to Obama than Boris is and of course the Liberal Democrats were in government during most of the Obama years and Nick Clegg, who was Deputy PM from 2010 to 2015 was also a liberal like Obama and got on very well with the President
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
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.
You'd think as someone whose job it had been to convince possibly doubtful jurors she'd be better at it.
It's part of the same problem some Labour/Lib Dems have/had with Johnson - he's so self-evidently horrendous to them that they just attack, attack, attack, working from the premise that it's self evident to everyone that he's unfit for office. That works fine in prosecution if the defendant is self-evidently guilty or a horrendous person, the jurors are probably happy to see that too as they're not invested in that person. But to win the next election, you need to convince some people who voted for that guy that they should vote for you next time and those voters probably don't buy into the person they voted for being self-evidently unfit for office. Simple attack says to those people, "you were wrong" when in fact you need to say to them, "maybe you were right last time - and, let's face it, our candidate wasn't very good - or at least you made a reasonable decision on the evidence available, but what we're offering this time really is good enough to make you change your vote and/or the guy you voted for looked reasonable at the time, but look at what he's done, *now* we can all see he should not get a second term".
You provide the perfect explanation for the competence attack line that Labour is using so effectively against Johnson.
How do you define effective? How many percentage points down on the last election polls should the Tories now be polling? How many fewer favourables should Johnson now have?
Comres: Final 2019 poll Tories 41% Most recent poll Tories 42%
Ipsos Mori: Final 2019 poll Johnson 36% Satisfied Most recent poll Johnson 40% Satisfied
The Tories got 44% last year and on most current polling the Tories would lose their majority and either Starmer would become PM or the Tories need the DUP again to stay in power, Boris is still in contention but he is no longer far ahead as he was against Corbyn
Labour should be out of sight by now given that since the election there isn't anything to be said for the government's general handling of events and nothing has gone right for them.
The question is whether their position is artificially maintained for now by infinite amounts of free money and the normal laws of gravity will return, or if the government can keep it going longer term.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
No it isn't as Bush Snr's only victory in 1988 came before Major's only victory in 1992.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's wins in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK electoral cycle does with any other western nation
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
No it isn't as Bush Snr's only victory in 1988 came before Major's only victory in 1992.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's win in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK does with any other western nation
Your examples simply beg more counter-examples. Thatcher's election preceded Reagan's. Why didn't Major's victory precede Bush I's re-election? Why didn't Bush II's two victories precede victory for Hague in 2001, or Howard in 2005?
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
No it isn't as Bush Snr's only victory in 1988 came before Major's only victory in 1992.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's win in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK does with any other western nation
Your examples simply beg more counter-examples. Thatcher's election preceded Reagan's. Why didn't Major's victory precede Bush I's re-election? Why didn't Bush II's two victories precede victory for Hague in 2001, or Howard in 2005?
Yes, Thatcher set the way for Reagan, Clinton set the way for Blair, Trump set the way for Boris etc. In much the same way as Biden would then pave the way for Starmer on the same basis.
In 1992 Major was facing his equivalent of Dukakis, Kinnock, he only got to Blair, the UK Bill Clinton, in 1997 when like Bush Snr he lost.
Had Major been facing Blair in 1992 he might well have lost.
2001 and 2005 are the most notable exceptions recently though as I said Blair also backed Bush's Iraq War in 2005 arguably even more strongly than Howard did and was nonetheless re elected
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
No it isn't as Bush Snr's only victory in 1988 came before Major's only victory in 1992.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's win in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK does with any other western nation
Your examples simply beg more counter-examples. Thatcher's election preceded Reagan's. Why didn't Major's victory precede Bush I's re-election? Why didn't Bush II's two victories precede victory for Hague in 2001, or Howard in 2005?
Yes, Thatcher set the way for Reagan, Clinton set the way for Blair, Trump set the way for Boris etc. In much the same way as Biden would then pave the way for Starmer on the same basis.
In 1992 Major was facing his equivalent of Dukakis, Kinnock, he only got to Blair, the UK Bill Clinton, in 1997 when like Bush Snr he lost.
Had Major been facing Blair in 1992 he might well have lost.
2001 and 2005 are the most notable exceptions recently though as I said Blair also backed Bush's Iraq War in 2005 arguably even more strongly than Howard did and was nonetheless re elected
So, if I have this straight, assuming Biden wins then there are two possibilities.
(1) Starmer wins in 2024 and you claim this was preordained by Biden's victory in 2020.
(2) Starmer doesn't win in 2024 and there will always be an incidental event that you can point to which explains the exception.
These polls seem to reflect public opinion and as I have said many times before, apart from this forum and the media, the public have little interest in US politics and Joe Biden will be an unknown to many
I don't think that is true, I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year for example unless there is a particularly big issue locally.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"I expect there will be more interest from most in the US presidential election result here than there will be in the English local election results next year" Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
Big G's comment was in relation to the UK public I think.
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
It's a bit weird to link Bush I with Major, when Major's victory in 1992 preceded Bush I's defeat in the same year.
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
No it isn't as Bush Snr's only victory in 1988 came before Major's only victory in 1992.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's win in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK does with any other western nation
Your examples simply beg more counter-examples. Thatcher's election preceded Reagan's. Why didn't Major's victory precede Bush I's re-election? Why didn't Bush II's two victories precede victory for Hague in 2001, or Howard in 2005?
Yes, Thatcher set the way for Reagan, Clinton set the way for Blair, Trump set the way for Boris etc. In much the same way as Biden would then pave the way for Starmer on the same basis.
In 1992 Major was facing his equivalent of Dukakis, Kinnock, he only got to Blair, the UK Bill Clinton, in 1997 when like Bush Snr he lost.
Had Major been facing Blair in 1992 he might well have lost.
2001 and 2005 are the most notable exceptions recently though as I said Blair also backed Bush's Iraq War in 2005 arguably even more strongly than Howard did and was nonetheless re elected
So, if I have this straight, assuming Biden wins then there are two possibilities.
(1) Starmer wins in 2024 and you claim this was preordained by Biden's victory in 2020.
(2) Starmer doesn't win in 2024 and there will always be an incidental event that you can point to which explains the exception.
No but like Clinton's win in the early and mid 1990s leading to Blair's win in 1997 on a similar ideological platform a Biden win and defeat of the populist right Trump would, if Starmer wins in 2024 and defeats the populist right Boris, clearly be seen as a precursor to it.
He is right though, plus a Biden administration would be the most pro Dublin since Kennedy, Biden would listen solely to Michael Martin on how the Internal Markets Bill breaches the GFA (even though it doesn't), largely ignore Boris who the Democrats will see as a mini British Trump and there would then be no UK US FTA as long as Boris remains PM and the Internal Markets Bill is UK law
This is whinging bilge.
Who is more likely to do any trade deals in general, a Biden administration or a Trump administration?
You'd be better off contemplating why your boy is seen as a mini-Trump and what this means for your lot and this country.
Comments
However remember unlike the UK where the House of Commons is the only elected element of the UK government, the US Federal government has 3 elected elements, the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate and as the GOP proved during the Obama and Clinton years and would likely prove again after the midterms during a Biden Presidency they can wield a lot of power by winning a majority in Congress even if they are out of power in the White House
Yes.
You'd hope the Dems would move on to somebody else if she doesn't, but as we saw with Hillary, a duff candidate can gain a lot of institutional power and become hard to stop in the primary, unless another Obama shows up.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1314110968495058945?s=20
Is this the infamous poll that allows 300-odd choices or some such?
We haven't heard much from Colorado because it should be safe and is looking safe, i.e. boring for news media. 538 has Hickenlooper 75% to win.
If he did and was re elected that would mean Harris would have to wait until 2028 to be Democratic nominee as Reagan's VP Bush senior had to wait 8 years to be GOP nominee after Reagan won
Has Pence got that 'instinct' that 'successful presidents' have? Doesn't give me that impression. TBH, seems a cold fish. The sort of person who in Puritan days, 'banned bear baiting not because it was cruel to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6R9fY8lfGo
Getting messages across isn't the only goal of the debate, and as far as we can tell Kamala succeeded in the things she needed to do the most: She avoided derailing the campaign, she improved her personal favourability, and she gave the impression that she'd make a competent VP. That was all fine. But having her entrenched in the "next nominee" spot is liable to be a problem for the Democrats, IMHO.
The Biden Presidency will struggle if it doesn't have control of the Senate. It probably struggles anyway - the problems it faces are vast - but a Republican majority in the Senate will break new boundaries in ways that will somehow manage to astonish.
Now she'll probably get a job at Fox
As @SouthamObserver says she played it safe, but was reasonably sassy at times!
My 747s:
Qantas to Bangkok (Christmas day - cabin decorated, nice Christmas lunch) Also Qantas across the Pacific in the posh seats
Cathay to Hong Kong (First landing at Kai Tak "gosh, aren't those buildings close....and I'm on the upper deck!")
Pan Am to Heathrow - upstairs in the bubble (might have been a -100) Stewardesses ancient
Air India to Delhi - very long take off run and slow climb - pilot "We are very heavy"
BA to too many to count - in all 3 cabins (at the time)
Virgin, ditto
Sabena to New York - got to visit the cockpit
Singapore to & from SIN - engine failure on take off once - favourite seat 17K upstairs
Air China Peking to Shanghai - all economy layout - "Here's your ticket, and here's your life insurance policy"
Lufthansa to and from Singapore
Malaysian to & from KL
Continental to & from Houston
I remember visiting London in 1969 and seeing a Pan Am 747 - it looked huge in comparison to everything else - and because it was so big appeared to be moving slowly
I'll miss it - especially the -200 which I remain convinced was quieter than the -300 & -400 - although the 380 had succeeded it as my favourite plane to fly - and that's not too long for the skies either.....
Bush Jnr and LBJ are examples of Presidents who were able to get their agenda through more effectively than most as their party controlled Congress for most of their period in office.
To make significant changes in US policy your party not only has to win the Presidency but Congress too and then make judicial appointments to start to shift the SC in its favour as well
https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1314053075150266370?s=20
Biden ECVs 316-322
Supremacy 96-104, equivalent to Biden 317-321
I have done some work with eCube in St Athan. I saw some A320s, 777s and remarkably a number of Hercules go through, but never the "Big Bird", although I know they have put a few through the shredder.
Comres:
Final 2019 poll Tories 41%
Most recent poll Tories 42%
Ipsos Mori:
Final 2019 poll Johnson 36% Satisfied
Most recent poll Johnson 40% Satisfied
Viewed in isolation you can appreciate their technical merits, but in the wider context it does nothing to stop them sliding to defeat.
Though the non-league side won the previous round against the odds, so everyone can't help but watch and wonder whether something unbelievable is about to happen.
If we pay attention to any foreign elections it is normally those in America before any others
"She'll start WW III", email scandal etc. This time I'm not seeing any of this. The Biden critics are all clear Trumpers/Republicans. Those to the left of Biden are biting their tongue
It is ironic on the day Starmer questions the 10.00pm curfew Drakeford, his Welsh labour colleague, affirmed that it continues here in Wales
The interest is just not there
Damned by faint praise.
Also your answer is specific to the UK which is only one out of seven of the countries presented. It would be very odd if Italians were taking more interest in English local elections than an election for the President of the USA.
This wasn’t about scoring some knock out punches. Her favourability went up and a clear majority though she could take over the role of President if needed .
Job done .
Some PBers are a bit down on her this morning for some reason.
Long ago and far away the US multinational P&G balked at it's UK subsidiary launching a dishwashing liquid named after their popular UK bar & toilet soap brand "Fairy".
"You can't call it "Fairy Liquid"!
"Why?"
Awkward silence.
In the end a compromise was agreed - two test markets, one with the UK's preferred name, "Fairy Liquid", the other with the US alternative......."Gay".
Six decades of market leadership later.....
https://twitter.com/GSYElection2020/status/1314120791294980096?s=20
It should also be remembered US and UK election winners often go in sync, Trump then Boris, Bill Clinton then Blair, Bush Snr then Major, Thatcher then Reagan, Nixon then Heath, Wilson then LBJ etc so a Biden win would be a boost for Starmer and a blow to Boris as it would suggest the electoral cycle in the US and UK is moving back to the centre left after shifting to the populist right.
Obama then Cameron?
https://twitter.com/TelegraphMag/status/777900251965300736?s=20
For all the desire to link Clinton's Presidency with Blair's ministry, for the majority of Clinton's Presidency Major was PM, and for the majority of Blair's ministry Bush II was President. That's closer to antiphased than in sync.
There have certainly been some conjunctions - Reagan/Thatcher and Trump/Brexit - but I don't think you can read anything into British politics from the result of the Presidential election.
The question is whether their position is artificially maintained for now by infinite amounts of free money and the normal laws of gravity will return, or if the government can keep it going longer term.
Bill Clinton's New Democrats and wins in 1992 and 1996 also set the way for New Labour and Blair's wins in 1997 and 2001 so on the same basis a Biden win in 2020 would set the way for a Starmer win in 2024.
In terms of electoral cycles the UK and US electoral cycle go closer together historically than the UK electoral cycle does with any other western nation
In 1992 Major was facing his equivalent of Dukakis, Kinnock, he only got to Blair, the UK Bill Clinton, in 1997 when like Bush Snr he lost.
Had Major been facing Blair in 1992 he might well have lost.
2001 and 2005 are the most notable exceptions recently though as I said Blair also backed Bush's Iraq War in 2005 arguably even more strongly than Howard did and was nonetheless re elected
(1) Starmer wins in 2024 and you claim this was preordained by Biden's victory in 2020.
(2) Starmer doesn't win in 2024 and there will always be an incidental event that you can point to which explains the exception.
Who is more likely to do any trade deals in general, a Biden administration or a Trump administration?
You'd be better off contemplating why your boy is seen as a mini-Trump and what this means for your lot and this country.
You're a Trumper now.