@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
In an ideal world. But I am afraid that wrongdoing has been endemic in many parts of the police for decades now, including the Met - and very recently.
Yep. I choose to disregard that though. I choose to do so because I want to believe wholeheartedly in the police.
People who believe what they want to be true rather than the facts are easy prey for fraudsters of all types. And I’m sorry to say that police who mislead the public about what is or is not a criminal offence are perpetrating a fraud on the public.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
You aren't on the ground.
And you tipped John James to win in Michigan and the GOP to retain their majority in the house on the basis of not believing the polls in 2018 as well based on feeling the polls didn't reflect the feeling on the ground.
Guy talks drivel. Polite, artful drivel.
What is your view on the Joylon Maugham comments today @Kinablu ?
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
When I started watching cricket in the 1990s most of the England team were not privately educated AFAIK:
Graham Gooch, Mike Atherton, Robin Smith, Mark Ramprakash, Jack Russell, Phillip DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Devon Malcolm, Phil Tufnell, Angus Fraser.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
Wasn't it Labour who sold off most state school playing fields?
Apparently not. A staggering 10,000 playing fields were sold off under the 1979-1997 Conservative governments; their Labour successors sold, on average, more than 20 a year; the Coalition is running at 17 annually. Often these latest were for understandable reasons, such as when schools merged or closed. Two years ago, however, the then education secretary Michael Gove had to apologise after The Telegraph revealed he had sold off more than the Coalition admitted, at times overruling official advice. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/11092344/Is-it-game-over-for-school-playing-fields.html
Bozo can’t be arsed to consult his own MPs about any of this, so ignoring whatever might be the views of councils in the areas affected is no surprise.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Could you expand on your assertion that despite all the national polling telling pretty much the same story right now, including the GOP leaners like Rasmussen, you are telling us that "it doesn't feel like that on the ground".
Perhaps you could point me to some credible sources where I could read about that. I would like to try to understand it.
I referenced them in an earlier post but here's the main ones Iwas refernecing
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
Quite so. People reflecting on the May election seem to act as though the average gap at the end was what it was at the start. The result might well still have surprised, but it was no longer as much of a surprise as it had been previously.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
Quite so. People reflecting on the May election seem to act as though the average gap at the end was what it was at the start. The result might well still have surprised, but it was no longer as much of a surprise as it had been previously.
Some people also even analysed that shrinking lead was being driven my Mrs May's collapsing ratings.
Dems on USA forums are still gripped by fear of another 2016 re-run.
However there are some differences with the polling then and now . There were many more undecided voters then and Clinton rarely polled above 50% .
Aswell as this Biden’s lead has been quite stable throughout.
Trump got lucky in 2016 with 46% of the vote and managed a perfect storm in 3 swing states. Can anyone really see him getting more than his 2016 vote .
In terms of early voting in several key states nearly 20% of that 2016 turnout has already voted , with each passing day Trumps mountain gets steeper .
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
Quite so. People reflecting on the May election seem to act as though the average gap at the end was what it was at the start. The result might well still have surprised, but it was no longer as much of a surprise as it had been previously.
That is fair enough, my recollection was off on the polls tightening so much in the last few days as I had a few things to deal with. Happy to stand corrected.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
You’re going to have to decide, pretty soon, whether you want to pump Trump until the end, in which case if Biden lands the expected landslide your credibility is gone, or whether you wish to engage with the spirit of the site which is to put personal preference aside and assess the candidates’ chances dispassionately.
If you still think Trump will win and he does, kudos to you, but it seems to me the greater risk is that you join all the PB Tories who thought Mrs May was heading for a stonking win against Corbyn in 2017, and have never since managed to live down such a public display of their own hubris.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
Betfair now offers you 8/1 on a narrow Trump win, if you’re interested.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
Quite so. People reflecting on the May election seem to act as though the average gap at the end was what it was at the start. The result might well still have surprised, but it was no longer as much of a surprise as it had been previously.
That is fair enough, my recollection was off on the polls tightening so much in the last few days as I had a few things to deal with. Happy to stand corrected.
It's a fair cop. We tend to only remember the broad strokes in any case.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
You’re going to have to decide, pretty soon, whether you want to pump Trump until the end, in which case if Biden lands the expected landslide your credibility is gone, or whether you wish to engage with the spirit of the site which is to put personal preference aside and assess the candidates’ chances dispassionately. It you still think Trump will win and he does, kudos to you, but it seems to me the greater risk is that you join all the PB Tories who thought Mrs May was heading for a stocking win against Corbyn in 2017, and have never since managed to live down their hubris.
Fair point but that seems like saying that if you don't repent and join the Pro-Biden camp, your name will be forever tainted. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody gets all their bets right including a number of those who are saying that Biden will win.
But is Nate's first law useful or do we need to wait till fireworks night to decide which set of experts was wrong, and then backfit to Nate's law? (And btw do we really have notoriously inaccurate polls, especially compared with America?)
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
Betfair now offers you 8/1 on a narrow Trump win, if you’re interested.
I might be actually, thanks for flagging that @Nigelb
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
The more Trump interjects and speaks over Biden and the moderator the more it reinforces the white women who have turned against him which is the big voting dynamic of this campaign. Trump's macho aggression is a big turn off to women.
And not just to women. I can personally testify that.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ? I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,
Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.
It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.
Thanks to the Betfair EV market, I don’t need to.
But the point is surely that someone saying they want to be President for the next four years really can’t hide away for the next month. That is one thing which might just eat into his lead.
Funnily enough, I'm not assuming anyone would literally put their mortgage on it (although on this site, you never know...)
Well, Biden was stuck in a basement for ages, hasn't really submitted himself to any tough and probing interviews and gets interviewers who softball him questions, so actually he has done a pretty good job at hiding himself away.
But, on a separate note, if hiding away does eat into leads, I better put my money on Collins in Maine and Tillis in NC as both their opponents are doing exactly that.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ? I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,
Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.
It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.
Thanks to the Betfair EV market, I don’t need to.
But the point is surely that someone saying they want to be President for the next four years really can’t hide away for the next month. That is one thing which might just eat into his lead.
Funnily enough, I'm not assuming anyone would literally put their mortgage on it (although on this site, you never know...)
Well, Biden was stuck in a basement for ages, hasn't really submitted himself to any tough and probing interviews and gets interviewers who softball him questions, so actually he has done a pretty good job at hiding himself away.
But, on a separate note, if hiding away does eat into leads, I better put my money on Collins in Maine and Tillis in NC as both their opponents are doing exactly that.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
The more Trump interjects and speaks over Biden and the moderator the more it reinforces the white women who have turned against him which is the big voting dynamic of this campaign. Trump's macho aggression is a big turn off to women.
Which was revealed on the night as a major weakness in PB’s ‘wisdom of crowds’, the PB discussion during the presidential debate mostly failing to pick up how Trump’s behaviour would be seen by a diverse range of voters.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
He still has 40% or so of the US electorate persuaded to vote for him. It’s not astounding that some people are still convinced he’ll win.
Oh sure. But the weight of money on Betfair holding him at 3? This surprises me. Still, bright side, gives all PBers who have not laid him yet the chance to get on at a still great price.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Leaps of faith can also be helped by taking action ourselves. You can sincerely believe the Lord is with you for an upcoming battle, but still put on armour. And we can have faith that the police will do a good job, but also help them do a good job by not pretending they are right if they are wrong. Who does that help? Not them, not us.
Also, sometimes leaps of faith do not work. Nor do the police exist from that, but from earned trust. Trust in professionalism for a start. If we let them get unprofessional, they lose that trust.
Scrutiny is a critical friend, not an attack. It's why we have select committees, independent regulators and so on. Because learning from our mistakes helps us a lot more than pretending we don't make mistakes.
It's also a lot more respectful to treat people as they are, and help them, then pretend they are other than they are, so they learn nothing.
I'll not belabour the point further, but I really really do not see how pretending problems do not exist helps anyone, including the police - the police officers I know are very keen to learn from their mistakes so they do better.
When I started watching cricket in the 1990s most of the England team were not privately educated AFAIK:
Graham Gooch, Mike Atherton, Robin Smith, Mark Ramprakash, Jack Russell, Phillip DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Devon Malcolm, Phil Tufnell, Angus Fraser.
I used to work with a networks guy who said at school he'd been on the fringes of the gangs until one day his headmaster announced in assembly that an ex-pupil would later that day open the batting for England. Maybe that is one advantage public school pupils always have: the knowledge that they are treading a well-worn path from school to success. It did not matter that my colleague was Black and Graham Gooch was not, or that academic work and sport are not directly linked. It was that it was possible for people from here (wherever here is) to succeed.
I'll stop now before I come over all American Dream. (Maybe it does not help that generations of schoolchildren are raised on Kes.)
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Sorry but I could not disagree more.
I am not a fan of "faith". I believe in evidence - and I want the Police to operate on that basis too.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
The police do not operate on the basis of faith. They operate on the basis of clearly defined powers. And when they act outside those powers they are behaving no better than criminals who seek to ignore the law.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Leaps of faith can also be helped by taking action ourselves. You can sincerely believe the Lord is with you for an upcoming battle, but still put on armour. And we can have faith that the police will do a good job, but also help them do a good job by not pretending they are right if they are wrong. Who does that help? Not them, not us.
Poppycock. Religious nonsense won't help your cause.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
I think most people accept that the race could tighten in the next three weeks and Trump could even win it.
But that is not what MeEd is saying. He is claiming that right now all the polling is wrong and "on the ground" it's very different though he cannot seem to provide any evidence for that other than his daily "gut feelings".
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Could you expand on your assertion that despite all the national polling telling pretty much the same story right now, including the GOP leaners like Rasmussen, you are telling us that "it doesn't feel like that on the ground".
Perhaps you could point me to some credible sources where I could read about that. I would like to try to understand it.
I referenced them in an earlier post but here's the main ones Iwas refernecing
Just also to correct @Alistair from earlier - I didn't say I was on the ground: I said journalists covering the vox pop were making these points.
I think what these articles are showing is that when a race isn't close, there's a vast conspiracy to pretend it is. The winning side are scared of complacency, the losing side are scared of looking hapless, and the media really, really want a nail-biter.
There are always some data points pointing in the other direction (Latinos!) so everybody plays up those.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
Well it opened at 22/28 (where I bought for unit £30) and it's now 94/100. This being not that Biden will win the EC but by how big he will win the EC.
How high do you need it to go before it's a sell for you?
The only reason Palestine isn't on there is because that's a Standing Item at all Momentum meetings. (Yes, that's a joke).
It's almost good news that Momentum are still talking about Assange and Venezuela etc. It confirms that they are irrelevant. Their influence within the Labour Party is diminishing rapidly, though not yet completely over.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Leaps of faith can also be helped by taking action ourselves. You can sincerely believe the Lord is with you for an upcoming battle, but still put on armour. And we can have faith that the police will do a good job, but also help them do a good job by not pretending they are right if they are wrong. Who does that help? Not them, not us.
Poppycock. Religious nonsense won't help your cause.
What on earth are you even talking about? I'm not the one arguing for a leap of faith, I'm saying even when people believe in them they still take rational action for the threat that exists. People pray for good health, but also take medicine. And they might think the police should be respected, but still criticise them if they deserve it.
Have you lost it or something? I mean, you're already arguing that pretending when the police make a mistake they haven't made one is a good idea, so the irrationality is very high.
I have genuinely never been so astounded as the arguments you have made this evening. Such little respect for the police as an institution, under the guise of respecting them.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Leaps of faith can also be helped by taking action ourselves. You can sincerely believe the Lord is with you for an upcoming battle, but still put on armour. And we can have faith that the police will do a good job, but also help them do a good job by not pretending they are right if they are wrong. Who does that help? Not them, not us.
Poppycock. Religious nonsense won't help your cause.
You’re the one raising leaps of faith.
Anyway I have a really fantastic investment which I want to share with you. Can’t tell you much about it. Otherwise everyone would want in. You gotta have faith and you’re just the person to make that leap of faith.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
The police do not operate on the basis of faith. They operate on the basis of clearly defined powers. And when they act outside those powers they are behaving no better than criminals who seek to ignore the law.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
I operate on the basis of trust (faith was just a choice based on the phrase). I choose to trust the police. I am not well-meaning. I don't seek to see good stuff happen, I insist on it. If you're a policeman and happen to arse about then I don't see you as part of that community any longer.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Could you expand on your assertion that despite all the national polling telling pretty much the same story right now, including the GOP leaners like Rasmussen, you are telling us that "it doesn't feel like that on the ground".
Perhaps you could point me to some credible sources where I could read about that. I would like to try to understand it.
I referenced them in an earlier post but here's the main ones Iwas refernecing
Just also to correct @Alistair from earlier - I didn't say I was on the ground: I said journalists covering the vox pop were making these points.
I'm struggling to understand why the impressions of a few journos "on the ground" would be be more accurate than all the national pollsters. Perhaps you could explain
If you want to very selectively cherry pick you can make a case for just about anything
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
Leaps of faith can also be helped by taking action ourselves. You can sincerely believe the Lord is with you for an upcoming battle, but still put on armour. And we can have faith that the police will do a good job, but also help them do a good job by not pretending they are right if they are wrong. Who does that help? Not them, not us.
Poppycock. Religious nonsense won't help your cause.
You’re the one raising leaps of faith.
Anyway I have a really fantastic investment which I want to share with you. Can’t tell you much about it. Otherwise everyone would want in. You gotta have faith and you’re just the person to make that leap of faith.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.
Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.
The second one is supposed to be a "town hall" format which is thought to be dangerous for Trump because he's liable to get in an argument with the undecided voter asking the question, so I guess Team Biden like the idea of keeping that one but squishing the third one.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
You aren't on the ground.
And you tipped John James to win in Michigan and the GOP to retain their majority in the house on the basis of not believing the polls in 2018 as well based on feeling the polls didn't reflect the feeling on the ground.
Guy talks drivel. Polite, artful drivel.
What is your view on the Joylon Maugham comments today @Kinablu ?
I have not vectored with him today. Have I missed something colourful?
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
The big lesson there was that the electoral constituency available to the Tories on identity politics and free marketism is a limited one, which is why Cameron/Osborne struggled to break 35%.
The constituency for cultural conservatism and fiscal moderation is far larger.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
The police do not operate on the basis of faith. They operate on the basis of clearly defined powers. And when they act outside those powers they are behaving no better than criminals who seek to ignore the law.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
I operate on the basis of trust (faith was just a choice based on the phrase). I choose to trust the police. I am not well-meaning. I don't seek to see good stuff happen, I insist on it. If you're a policeman and happen to arse about then I don't see you as part of that community any longer.
Except you are very pointedly not insisting on good stuff because, as far as the police is concerned, when I pointed out that the police were claiming to enforce laws which do not exist - which is not insisting on good stuff - you came up with one of the most bizarre and, frankly, alarming set of arguments for why this should not matter.
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
The police do not operate on the basis of faith. They operate on the basis of clearly defined powers. And when they act outside those powers they are behaving no better than criminals who seek to ignore the law.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
I operate on the basis of trust (faith was just a choice based on the phrase). I choose to trust the police. I am not well-meaning. I don't seek to see good stuff happen, I insist on it. If you're a policeman and happen to arse about then I don't see you as part of that community any longer.
Oh yeah, that really comes across:
Omnium 5.41pm
Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.
Yes, that totally says you insist on good things happening, when you claim people who point out the police are mistaken about their powers (and thus acting contrary to the law) are 'unpleasant' and not 'law-abiding'.
So apparently your insistence on good stuff does not include the police acting lawfully, since pointing out if they are not is unpleasant.
I'm terrified what you would consider bad stuff, since lawful behaviour is not good stuff that must be insisted upon.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
And the mood. Oh Jeremy Corbyn. Oh Jeremy Corbyn. (To the tune of Seven Nation Army.) That was unprecedented.
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Could you expand on your assertion that despite all the national polling telling pretty much the same story right now, including the GOP leaners like Rasmussen, you are telling us that "it doesn't feel like that on the ground".
Perhaps you could point me to some credible sources where I could read about that. I would like to try to understand it.
I referenced them in an earlier post but here's the main ones Iwas refernecing
Just also to correct @Alistair from earlier - I didn't say I was on the ground: I said journalists covering the vox pop were making these points.
I'm struggling to understand why the impressions of a few journos "on the ground" would be be more accurate than all the national pollsters. Perhaps you could explain
If you want to very selectively cherry pick you can make a case for just about anything
They might not be. But what gives you such certainty the polls are absolutely right? It's a serious question.
I got back to a point I made before. Trump was 6/1 on the day in 2016. How did that happen if the national polls were so supposedly accurate?
Anyway, interesting article - don't worry, it's not a journo interviewing a voter, it's a media industry trade publication but it has relevance to the current debate
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
The big lesson there was that the electoral constituency available to the Tories on identity politics and free marketism is a limited one, which is why Cameron/Osborne struggled to break 35%.
The constituency for cultural conservatism and fiscal moderation is far larger.
Not sure I agree. Free marketism hasn't really had an opportunity to shine since Thatcher's time. Cameron/Osborne had to spend their time trying to reduce the deficit, not cut taxes. If it wasn't for the extreme deficit that they inherited then with the same amount of fiscal restraint it would have funded a lot of tax cuts - which could be much more popular.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
You’re going to have to decide, pretty soon, whether you want to pump Trump until the end, in which case if Biden lands the expected landslide your credibility is gone, or whether you wish to engage with the spirit of the site which is to put personal preference aside and assess the candidates’ chances dispassionately. It you still think Trump will win and he does, kudos to you, but it seems to me the greater risk is that you join all the PB Tories who thought Mrs May was heading for a stocking win against Corbyn in 2017, and have never since managed to live down their hubris.
Fair point but that seems like saying that if you don't repent and join the Pro-Biden camp, your name will be forever tainted. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody gets all their bets right including a number of those who are saying that Biden will win.
True. Very true. I've made some bad calls. Just not recently.
What makes me believe in these big Biden leads is when they come packaged with a number showing the non-Trump Republican incumbent doing OK, that shows you the sampling/weighting is legit:
Can we please also finally change the English national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
A much quieter night on the American polling front and a couple of polls from states not often surveyed.
In Montana, Trump leads 56-43 - it was 56-36 to Trump in 201 so a 3.5% swing to Biden which fits well in with the pattern. Democrats often poll high 30s in this state - Clinton won with 37% in 1992 beating Bush with 35% and Ross Perot on 26%. Obama get to within a couple of points in 2008 but normally it's about 60-40 to the Republican irrespective of the national result.
Maryland is another that won't be in anyone's TCTC list - Clinton won 60-34 and Biden is up 61-30 so it's another 3.5% swing to Biden.
Two very different states but two identical outcomes suggesting a 9-point national lead for Biden which fits in well with what we are seeing in those national polls.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.
You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?
You’re going to have to decide, pretty soon, whether you want to pump Trump until the end, in which case if Biden lands the expected landslide your credibility is gone, or whether you wish to engage with the spirit of the site which is to put personal preference aside and assess the candidates’ chances dispassionately. It you still think Trump will win and he does, kudos to you, but it seems to me the greater risk is that you join all the PB Tories who thought Mrs May was heading for a stocking win against Corbyn in 2017, and have never since managed to live down their hubris.
Fair point but that seems like saying that if you don't repent and join the Pro-Biden camp, your name will be forever tainted. Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody gets all their bets right including a number of those who are saying that Biden will win.
True. Very true. I've made some bad calls. Just not recently.
Can we please also change the English anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
To be fair that was a superb cross and a fine England goal.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.
Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.
The second one is supposed to be a "town hall" format which is thought to be dangerous for Trump because he's liable to get in an argument with the undecided voter asking the question, so I guess Team Biden like the idea of keeping that one but squishing the third one.
Roger Stone in the Spectator said Trump should skip the third one.
Looking through the twitter posts is brilliant. Great satire!
Can anyone answer me this question. Does anyone know if there is a mechanism to avoid double counting positive results. Are students just being recorded in their uni location, and not at home via their app?
Can we please also finally change the English national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
How about we sing a national anthem that is about the country and not asking a sky fairy to save a wealthy individual "born to rule over us"?
@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.
For me, this is true.
That is a truly absurd comment, as even if the police are honoured and respected they can be entirely mistaken about the breadth of their authority, and people questioning them when they are mistaken is not displaying a lack of honour or respect.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
Sometimes a leap of faith works.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
The police do not operate on the basis of faith. They operate on the basis of clearly defined powers. And when they act outside those powers they are behaving no better than criminals who seek to ignore the law.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
I operate on the basis of trust (faith was just a choice based on the phrase). I choose to trust the police. I am not well-meaning. I don't seek to see good stuff happen, I insist on it. If you're a policeman and happen to arse about then I don't see you as part of that community any longer.
Oh yeah, that really comes across:
Omnium 5.41pm
Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.
Yes, that totally says you insist on good things happening, when you claim people who point out the police are mistaken about their powers (and thus acting contrary to the law) are 'unpleasant' and not 'law-abiding'.
So apparently your insistence on good stuff does not include the police acting lawfully, since pointing out if they are not is unpleasant.
I'm terrified what you would consider bad stuff, since lawful behaviour is not good stuff that must be insisted upon.
The police may act in ways that they shouldn't - it will happen.
I did not say at all that people who point out wrongdoing by the police are wrong. We can all see when that occurs.
I've no idea what your latter point means, and I suspect neither have you.
What makes me believe in these big Biden leads is when they come packaged with a number showing the non-Trump Republican incumbent doing OK, that shows you the sampling/weighting is legit:
Those numbers aren't bad for Trump if you factor in the secular shift to the Democrats in Texas.
I'm increasingly thinking Iowa will be a Democratic pick up in the Senate and maybe the Presidential election. looking more like Montana though is safe for the GOP (Daines is +9)
I think what these articles are showing is that when a race isn't close, there's a vast conspiracy to pretend it is. The winning side are scared of complacency, the losing side are scared of looking hapless, and the media really, really want a nail-biter.
There are always some data points pointing in the other direction (Latinos!) so everybody plays up those.
Indeed - we saw the same in the UK before 1997 - nobody could quite believe Blair would win a landslide (including Blair himself) so anything which even gave a hint it might not be plain sailing was magnified.
It may be @MrEd will make us all look stupid in a month and I don't currently buy into the notion of a Biden landslide - Trump's base is absolutely committed to him but a lot of Biden's base, while not committed to Biden, is committed to voting against Trump.
The white male vote has swung 7% from the Republicans to the Democrats since 2016 - that's the key element in all the polling.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.
Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.
The second one is supposed to be a "town hall" format which is thought to be dangerous for Trump because he's liable to get in an argument with the undecided voter asking the question, so I guess Team Biden like the idea of keeping that one but squishing the third one.
Roger Stone in the Spectator said Trump should skip the third one.
Thought he was banged up. Are you allowed to pen a Speccy column from jail?
What makes me believe in these big Biden leads is when they come packaged with a number showing the non-Trump Republican incumbent doing OK, that shows you the sampling/weighting is legit:
Those numbers aren't bad for Trump if you factor in the secular shift to the Democrats in Texas.
Mind you if Trump did lose Texas it would be the worst result for a Republican presidential candidate since Goldwater in 1964 when he lost the lone star state and went down to a landslide defeat, Ford in 1976 was the last Republican candidate to lose Texas but then he won California instead unlike Goldwater and zero chance of Trump doing that.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.
Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.
The second one is supposed to be a "town hall" format which is thought to be dangerous for Trump because he's liable to get in an argument with the undecided voter asking the question, so I guess Team Biden like the idea of keeping that one but squishing the third one.
Roger Stone in the Spectator said Trump should skip the third one.
Thought he was banged up. Are you allowed to pen a Speccy column from jail?
When I started watching cricket in the 1990s most of the England team were not privately educated AFAIK:
Graham Gooch, Mike Atherton, Robin Smith, Mark Ramprakash, Jack Russell, Phillip DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Devon Malcolm, Phil Tufnell, Angus Fraser.
The 90's weren't exactly a golden era for English cricket.
What makes me believe in these big Biden leads is when they come packaged with a number showing the non-Trump Republican incumbent doing OK, that shows you the sampling/weighting is legit:
Those numbers aren't bad for Trump if you factor in the secular shift to the Democrats in Texas.
I'm increasingly thinking Iowa will be a Democratic pick up in the Senate and maybe the Presidential election. looking more like Montana though is safe for the GOP (Daines is +9)
Daines was indeed +9 in the latest poll, but the previous one had Bullock +1.
That said 538 does reckon it’s likely to stay GOP.
Oh, and what is your betting record like? Mine (at that point) at the bottom of that post for disclosure
PS for matters of disclosure on whether to listen to me, I won on Brexit and the US Presidentials but did horribly on the 2017 GE ex-TSE's great tip on Scottish Tories
Lost on IndyRef but I was purely betting with Heart over Head and refused to cash out my position on the day. Absolutely smashed 2015 ending up severely restricted at a number of bookies Big win on Trump nomination Modest losses on 2016 Holyrood, no bet on Brexit. Modest lost on presidential (damn you Jill Stein). Smashed 2017 betting on SCons, got limited by Betfair Sportsbook Break even on 2019 as couldn't take advantage of Betfair's stupid odds when they put out that ridiculous SNP over/under line when the exit poll came out.
Can we please also finally change the English national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
How about we sing a national anthem that is about the country and not asking a sky fairy to save a wealthy individual "born to rule over us"?
The Queen is our Head of State and anointed by God at her coronation and the royal anthem reflects that, however that does not prevent having an English national anthem as well
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?
Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.
But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?
It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject
Well, I accepted the "polling" on Theresa May and it wasn't pleasant so I am slightly wary of repeating the same experience, especially given the quality of US polls.
May achieved the highest share of the vote for the Tories since Thatcher. Your mistake was to ignore the rest of the picture the polls were painting.
The big lesson there was that the electoral constituency available to the Tories on identity politics and free marketism is a limited one, which is why Cameron/Osborne struggled to break 35%.
The constituency for cultural conservatism and fiscal moderation is far larger.
LD voters under Davey interestingly are now more pro free market than Tory voters under Boris, a number of Cameron voters like TSE are now voting LD while UKIP voters in 2015 are now largely voting Tory
So: let the old and the poor die out, and we end up with a richer, younger population. What's the problem?
Once all the northerners and Scottish are dead, we can rewild these so-called towns, Livercastle, Manchespool, "Glasgae", that one with the bridge, and turn them into forests full of wolves and wild boars, for rich young goodlooking southerners to go hunting.
Oh, and what is your betting record like? Mine (at that point) at the bottom of that post for disclosure
PS for matters of disclosure on whether to listen to me, I won on Brexit and the US Presidentials but did horribly on the 2017 GE ex-TSE's great tip on Scottish Tories
Lost on IndyRef but I was purely betting with Heart over Head and refused to cash out my position on the day. Absolutely smashed 2015 ending up severely restricted at a number of bookies Big win on Trump nomination Modest losses on 2016 Holyrood, no bet on Brexit. Modest lost on presidential (damn you Jill Stein). Smashed 2017 betting on SCons, got limited by Betfair Sportsbook Break even on 2019 as couldn't take advantage of Betfair's stupid odds when they put out that ridiculous SNP over/under line when the exit poll came out.
Cheers for that, that is quite good. Have to admit the one reason why I am such a scaredy cat on this one is that I don't properly grasp the whole "cash in / cash out" element on Betfair so I tend to go for bets on Ladbrokes that can't be reversed. Stupid I know......
Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.
The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.
I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT
Hang on: the opinion polls showed a dramatically tightening race
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
I would like to go on record as saying I am still expecting a Trump surge and to close to about 4 points by election day.
Actually I’ll take that as a charity bet with you @Alistair just for fun. £20 at even money? You get Biden +4pts or lower on 3 Nov, I get 4pts or more. My charity is Amnesty International. You get to nominate where my money goes if you win.
I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.
What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?
In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.
So why has he done it?
Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.
Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.
The second one is supposed to be a "town hall" format which is thought to be dangerous for Trump because he's liable to get in an argument with the undecided voter asking the question, so I guess Team Biden like the idea of keeping that one but squishing the third one.
Roger Stone in the Spectator said Trump should skip the third one.
Thought he was banged up. Are you allowed to pen a Speccy column from jail?
I am sure the Speccie has had criminals pen its articles before. Only for the right sorts of crimes though
Comments
"lot of the counties now direct a lot of these younger players to the private school"
Same with rugby. Football is similar in terms of kids play academy, not club football.
Graham Gooch, Mike Atherton, Robin Smith, Mark Ramprakash, Jack Russell, Phillip DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Devon Malcolm, Phil Tufnell, Angus Fraser.
Honestly, what does respecting and honouring the police have to do with whether they are mistaken about the law? Being wrong, as they sometimes are, is not the same thing as them undertaking deliberate wrongdoing, which is a separate issue entirely.
I respect and honour the police, and one way I do that is to hold them to the high standard their position requires, not give them a pass for making mistakes in some misguided belief to ignore their mistakes is a sign of respect.
I consider it disrespectful to the person involved to pretend they are right when they are wrong. And disrespectful to the police to not hold them to high stanadrds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election
The Labour Party went from 25% in the polls at the start of the campaign to close to 40% by the end.
That being said, this is also a reminder of how quickly things can change. That was 15 points in 32 days.
A staggering 10,000 playing fields were sold off under the 1979-1997 Conservative governments; their Labour successors sold, on average, more than 20 a year; the Coalition is running at 17 annually. Often these latest were for understandable reasons, such as when schools merged or closed. Two years ago, however, the then education secretary Michael Gove had to apologise after The Telegraph revealed he had sold off more than the Coalition admitted, at times overruling official advice.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/schoolsports/11092344/Is-it-game-over-for-school-playing-fields.html
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-joe-biden-police-dc121351b80fa6b0d30df0671f266634
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/23/despacito-isnt-good-enough-joe-biden-latino-voters-are-slipping-away
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/07/in-michigan-trump-and-biden-compete-for-pandemic-weary-swing-voters/
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-05/trump-biden-nevada-battleground
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-latino-wisconsin/in-battleground-wisconsin-some-latinos-feel-ignored-by-biden-idUSKBN26N1MZ
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trumps-appeal-in-flyover-country/
Just also to correct @Alistair from earlier - I didn't say I was on the ground: I said journalists covering the vox pop were making these points.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/871432155330744320
However there are some differences with the polling then and now . There were many more undecided voters then and Clinton rarely polled above 50% .
Aswell as this Biden’s lead has been quite stable throughout.
Trump got lucky in 2016 with 46% of the vote and managed a perfect storm in 3 swing states. Can anyone really see him getting more than his 2016 vote .
In terms of early voting in several key states nearly 20% of that 2016 turnout has already voted , with each passing day Trumps mountain gets steeper .
If you still think Trump will win and he does, kudos to you, but it seems to me the greater risk is that you join all the PB Tories who thought Mrs May was heading for a stonking win against Corbyn in 2017, and have never since managed to live down such a public display of their own hubris.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/1313844463006031873
Defending against, or creating?
Which was revealed on the night as a major weakness in PB’s ‘wisdom of crowds’, the PB discussion during the presidential debate mostly failing to pick up how Trump’s behaviour would be seen by a diverse range of voters.
The police exist from precisely that leap of faith. I'm happy to continue to participate in that leap.
😂
Also, sometimes leaps of faith do not work. Nor do the police exist from that, but from earned trust. Trust in professionalism for a start. If we let them get unprofessional, they lose that trust.
Scrutiny is a critical friend, not an attack. It's why we have select committees, independent regulators and so on. Because learning from our mistakes helps us a lot more than pretending we don't make mistakes.
It's also a lot more respectful to treat people as they are, and help them, then pretend they are other than they are, so they learn nothing.
I'll not belabour the point further, but I really really do not see how pretending problems do not exist helps anyone, including the police - the police officers I know are very keen to learn from their mistakes so they do better.
I'll stop now before I come over all American Dream. (Maybe it does not help that generations of schoolchildren are raised on Kes.)
I am not a fan of "faith". I believe in evidence - and I want the Police to operate on that basis too.
Trust is essential. Trust has to be earned not demanded. And it will only be justified on the basis of actions and facts.
If I might refer you to this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/ - in particular:
“ Abuse of trust undermines the confidence which the public and police both need if policing is to work well – especially during lockdown when the police have been given unprecedentedly wide (and potentially oppressive) powers.
Abuse of trust at any time undermines the reputation of every other police officer, no matter how honest or hard-working. As the Lancashire Police’s apology put it: “It only takes one incident like this to undo the hard work of so many.” Quite.”
Your approach, however well-meaning you may think it, is one which allows some in the police to behave badly, to abuse trust and to ruin what should be a vital and well-regarded body.
{Comrade Delta has entered the chat}
But that is not what MeEd is saying. He is claiming that right now all the polling is wrong and "on the ground" it's very different though he cannot seem to provide any evidence for that other than his daily "gut feelings".
There are always some data points pointing in the other direction (Latinos!) so everybody plays up those.
How high do you need it to go before it's a sell for you?
540?
It's almost good news that Momentum are still talking about Assange and Venezuela etc. It confirms that they are irrelevant. Their influence within the Labour Party is diminishing rapidly, though not yet completely over.
Have you lost it or something? I mean, you're already arguing that pretending when the police make a mistake they haven't made one is a good idea, so the irrationality is very high.
I have genuinely never been so astounded as the arguments you have made this evening. Such little respect for the police as an institution, under the guise of respecting them.
Anyway I have a really fantastic investment which I want to share with you. Can’t tell you much about it. Otherwise everyone would want in. You gotta have faith and you’re just the person to make that leap of faith.
So how about it?
Haven't noticed anyone complaining recently that they can't get a test. Have the capacity issues been resolved for now or still ongoing?
I can't imagine the Roche issues will be helping.
If you want to very selectively cherry pick you can make a case for just about anything
The constituency for cultural conservatism and fiscal moderation is far larger.
Anyway dinner calls.
Omnium 5.41pm
Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.
Yes, that totally says you insist on good things happening, when you claim people who point out the police are mistaken about their powers (and thus acting contrary to the law) are 'unpleasant' and not 'law-abiding'.
So apparently your insistence on good stuff does not include the police acting lawfully, since pointing out if they are not is unpleasant.
I'm terrified what you would consider bad stuff, since lawful behaviour is not good stuff that must be insisted upon.
I got back to a point I made before. Trump was 6/1 on the day in 2016. How did that happen if the national polls were so supposedly accurate?
Anyway, interesting article - don't worry, it's not a journo interviewing a voter, it's a media industry trade publication but it has relevance to the current debate
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/356409/earned-media-distractions-may-count-more-in-polit.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=120036&hashid=E-AbuZ-ZSu94W2xYgDxxDW5oWV4
The UK should remain at BST this winter.
Good on Lewis. The new track is a terrible idea, cutting down rainforest to built a motor racing circuit is a such a horrible idea.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
A much quieter night on the American polling front and a couple of polls from states not often surveyed.
In Montana, Trump leads 56-43 - it was 56-36 to Trump in 201 so a 3.5% swing to Biden which fits well in with the pattern. Democrats often poll high 30s in this state - Clinton won with 37% in 1992 beating Bush with 35% and Ross Perot on 26%. Obama get to within a couple of points in 2008 but normally it's about 60-40 to the Republican irrespective of the national result.
Maryland is another that won't be in anyone's TCTC list - Clinton won 60-34 and Biden is up 61-30 so it's another 3.5% swing to Biden.
Two very different states but two identical outcomes suggesting a 9-point national lead for Biden which fits in well with what we are seeing in those national polls.
Re-building the narrative.
To be fair that was a superb cross and a fine England goal.
I tend to agree on the anthem
Can anyone answer me this question. Does anyone know if there is a mechanism to avoid double counting positive results. Are students just being recorded in their uni location, and not at home via their app?
I did not say at all that people who point out wrongdoing by the police are wrong. We can all see when that occurs.
I've no idea what your latter point means, and I suspect neither have you.
It may be @MrEd will make us all look stupid in a month and I don't currently buy into the notion of a Biden landslide - Trump's base is absolutely committed to him but a lot of Biden's base, while not committed to Biden, is committed to voting against Trump.
The white male vote has swung 7% from the Republicans to the Democrats since 2016 - that's the key element in all the polling.
That said 538 does reckon it’s likely to stay GOP.
Absolutely smashed 2015 ending up severely restricted at a number of bookies
Big win on Trump nomination
Modest losses on 2016 Holyrood, no bet on Brexit.
Modest lost on presidential (damn you Jill Stein).
Smashed 2017 betting on SCons, got limited by Betfair Sportsbook
Break even on 2019 as couldn't take advantage of Betfair's stupid odds when they put out that ridiculous SNP over/under line when the exit poll came out.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1313885499086565376?s=20
Once all the northerners and Scottish are dead, we can rewild these so-called towns, Livercastle, Manchespool, "Glasgae", that one with the bridge, and turn them into forests full of wolves and wild boars, for rich young goodlooking southerners to go hunting.
Let me know sir.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1314288758158774274?s=20