Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Ever hear of "front porch" campaigns? Very successful under the right circumstances.
Actually Trumpsky's antic-frantic- manic campaigning this year reminds yours truly of Andrew Johnson's infamous "Swing Around the Circle" during the critical 1866 midterm elections.
"Swing Around the Circle refers to a disastrous speaking campaign undertaken by United States President Andrew Johnson between August 27 and September 15, 1866, in which he tried to gain support for his mild Reconstruction policies and for his preferred candidates (mostly Democrats) in the forthcoming midterm Congressional elections. The tour's nickname came from the route that the campaign took: "Washington, D.C., to New York, west to Chicago, south to St. Louis, and east through the Ohio River valley back to the nation's capital".
Johnson undertook the speaking tour in the face of increasing opposition in the Northern states and in Washington to his lenient form of Reconstruction in the South, which had led the Southern states largely to revert to the social system that had predominated before the Civil War. Although he believed he could regain the trust of moderate Northern Republicans by exploiting tensions between them and their Radical counterparts on the tour, Johnson only alienated them more. This caused a supporter of Johnson to say of the tour that it would have been better "had it never been made."[1] The tour eventually became the centerpiece of the tenth article of impeachment against Johnson."
Nicking legs of beef? Petrol? I grew up in a rough area, but I don't remember any of that going on. That "balla(r)ds" gag was flashback humour to a misspelling that someone made on this site a day or two ago.
Oh, and I live in the midlands these days, but I'm from near Newport. Yes, the Welsh Newport. So yeah, I'm a taffy too, although not in the eyes of people from up the valleys who seem to regard Newportonians as a sort of English fifth column.
Leave the Welsh to worry about Wales & the Scots to worry about Scotland.
There's a lot of talk on here today of the feckless poor, always on the take, and neglecting their kids.
For a bit of balance, what about the feckless rich, always on the take, and neglecting their kids? Starting with the Prime Minister. And extending octopus-like to all the cronies with government contracts, and the tax-evading millionaires and billionaires that constantly fleece the rest of us. But of course their kids don't go hungry.
By comparison, Marcus Rashford is a paragon of virtuous citizenship.
Hear! Hear!
Some of the worst parenting that I have seen is from parents of kids in private schools. A friend is a school nurse at one, and does a lot of counselling. The stories are heartbreaking.
Couldn't agree more, I have just been talking about malnourished kids though and that tends to be the poor end of the spectrum. Far too many parents that aren't fit in all strata's of life. If the welfare of your kids don't come first physical,mental and educational then you shouldn't be having them.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
There's a lot of talk on here today of the feckless poor, always on the take, and neglecting their kids.
For a bit of balance, what about the feckless rich, always on the take, and neglecting their kids? Starting with the Prime Minister. And extending octopus-like to all the cronies with government contracts, and the tax-evading millionaires and billionaires that constantly fleece the rest of us. But of course their kids don't go hungry.
By comparison, Marcus Rashford is a paragon of virtuous citizenship.
Hear! Hear!
Some of the worst parenting that I have seen is from parents of kids in private schools. A friend is a school nurse at one, and does a lot of counselling. The stories are heartbreaking.
Couldn't agree more, I have just been talking about malnourished kids though and that tends to be the poor end of the spectrum. Far too many parents that aren't fit in all strata's of life. If the welfare of your kids don't come first physical,mental and educational then you shouldn't be having them.
“Shouldn’t be having kids in the first place” is all very well and good but it’s completely irrelevant. They HAVE had kids. That’s the reality.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
There's a lot of talk on here today of the feckless poor, always on the take, and neglecting their kids.
For a bit of balance, what about the feckless rich, always on the take, and neglecting their kids? Starting with the Prime Minister. And extending octopus-like to all the cronies with government contracts, and the tax-evading millionaires and billionaires that constantly fleece the rest of us. But of course their kids don't go hungry.
By comparison, Marcus Rashford is a paragon of virtuous citizenship.
Hear! Hear!
Some of the worst parenting that I have seen is from parents of kids in private schools. A friend is a school nurse at one, and does a lot of counselling. The stories are heartbreaking.
Couldn't agree more, I have just been talking about malnourished kids though and that tends to be the poor end of the spectrum. Far too many parents that aren't fit in all strata's of life. If the welfare of your kids don't come first physical,mental and educational then you shouldn't be having them.
“Shouldn’t be having kids in the first place” is all very well and good but it’s completely irrelevant. They HAVE had kids. That’s the reality.
Did I say it wasn't the reality? It was merely a statement of my opinion which is you aren't going to look after them don't have them. I wasn't suggesting we go rounding up the kids or anything.
To be fair these ones actually look like genuine polls rather than their previous made up efforts.
OR made-up polls made to look like real polling.
Like I've said here before, am 99.46% sure that Trafalgar "polls" are really push-button responses to push-poll questions ("Would your neighbors vote for Joe Biden if they knew he was a life-long Satanist?") then massaged via cookie-cutter demographics.
Ever hear of "front porch" campaigns? Very successful under the right circumstances.
Actually Trumpsky's antic-frantic- manic campaigning this year reminds yours truly of Andrew Johnson's infamous "Swing Around the Circle" during the critical 1866 midterm elections.
"Swing Around the Circle refers to a disastrous speaking campaign undertaken by United States President Andrew Johnson between August 27 and September 15, 1866, in which he tried to gain support for his mild Reconstruction policies and for his preferred candidates (mostly Democrats) in the forthcoming midterm Congressional elections. The tour's nickname came from the route that the campaign took: "Washington, D.C., to New York, west to Chicago, south to St. Louis, and east through the Ohio River valley back to the nation's capital".
Johnson undertook the speaking tour in the face of increasing opposition in the Northern states and in Washington to his lenient form of Reconstruction in the South, which had led the Southern states largely to revert to the social system that had predominated before the Civil War. Although he believed he could regain the trust of moderate Northern Republicans by exploiting tensions between them and their Radical counterparts on the tour, Johnson only alienated them more. This caused a supporter of Johnson to say of the tour that it would have been better "had it never been made."[1] The tour eventually became the centerpiece of the tenth article of impeachment against Johnson."
Johnson was a war Democrat, not a moderate Northern Republican only there to balance Lincoln's ticket in 1865, most of the areas Trump is going to actually voted for him, many for the first time voting GOP for President for a generation in 2016
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
There's a lot of talk on here today of the feckless poor, always on the take, and neglecting their kids.
For a bit of balance, what about the feckless rich, always on the take, and neglecting their kids? Starting with the Prime Minister. And extending octopus-like to all the cronies with government contracts, and the tax-evading millionaires and billionaires that constantly fleece the rest of us. But of course their kids don't go hungry.
By comparison, Marcus Rashford is a paragon of virtuous citizenship.
Hear! Hear!
Some of the worst parenting that I have seen is from parents of kids in private schools. A friend is a school nurse at one, and does a lot of counselling. The stories are heartbreaking.
Unless you have a good reason, like foreign service, sending your kids to boarding school is basically child abuse. If you don't want to look after your own kids, don't have them.
It was confirmed this week that pensions will rise by 2 per cent above inflation next April at a time when real working age incomes are falling. That triple lock policy will cost about £1.5 billion in the coming year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Giving food vouchers to the poorest pupils over the holidays would cost around £20 million a week—or £60 million for the half term and Christmas breaks. The government spent £522 million on encouraging people to Eat Out to Help Out, but apparently cannot find a tenth of that to stop children going hungry. It is a choice to spend the money on pensioners and pizza parlours, not the poor.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
Who are you competing against? I haven’t made any predictions on who’s going to win. I’m just questioning your undying loyalty to Trafalgar.
Tanker update...it’s getting dark and I can barely see it now. There is supposed to be a five mile exclusion zone around the tanker, and ship finder suggests some of the nearby cargo vessels have steered away from it. There’s a tug a long way out of Southampton just north of it, which is perhaps intended to escort it in.
So peaked or weekend or both? Come back about Wednesday so we can tell you.
Weekend. If you look at the 7-day average curve for cases by day reported on the dashboard, you can see that the number of reported cases has been rising pretty much linearly since the start of October (except for the Excel hiccup). So far, there is no sign that this rate is slowing, but the good news is that it doesn't seem to be exponential either, which would indicate a falling R number (but still above 1).
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
Ballpark Biden 53%, Trump 44% on those figures. If that is the case, we're looking at MO and IN moving columns too. Not likely. But your point is well taken - Biden odds of winning NC from this point far exceed Trump's
Indiana isn't going to go to Biden, last time round it was called precisely one hour in at the same point as Kentucky though...
I no longer come in contact with many parents but see little reason why it will have changed. I do come in contact with a fair few people on UC who complain about how they can't make money reach the end and I notice most of them have the latest mobiles and are on these 50£ a month contracts to keep up to date. Whereas I am on an old note 3 I got for 80£ from CEX and sim only deal from giff gaff costing 10£ a month
It's pretty obvious that there are lots of kids with real problems in getting adeauate nutrition, and lots of parents who don't spend money wisely, with some overlap in families. The former seems the more serious problem, so I favour a simple system tied to food (e.g. vouchers), and if some of it is wasted, that's a cost of addressing the issue and not really a big deal - it's still mostly going to help poorer families. It's like the argument that one shouldn't help after a tsunami because some money might be misappropriated - you can factor that in and still feel it's worth doing.
I would agree with you Nick if I believed that most of those kids would be fed. Sadly as I pointed out the extra 20 a week they already get doesn't seem to have had an effect...what makes you an extra 15 will?
This is also not a pandemic problem but a long term problem we should have addressed long ago by governments of all colours or any colour its been around since I was a kid. In the 21st century we shouldn't have this issue. This to me seems to be just shovel a little more cash and pat ourselves on the back and we will call it sorted and we don't care if it works or not.
Sure, this is a bigger problem than that.
And its resolution will be about education (cooking and money management), esteem (all of us are more likely to eat rubbish when we feel rubbish), and planning and transport (what do you do if the only shop on your estate can only function by charging over the odds for fresh food?)
And it's true that the underlying question- people generally accept the idea of free school meals in termtime, how are struggling families expected to deal with the sudden bulge in food costs in the holidays?- has been around for decades
A long term solution would be great. Even a medium term one, perhaps involving the kitchens in primary schools, would be great. But since half term has just started, I'll settle for a short term one.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
Who are you competing against? I haven’t made any predictions on who’s going to win. I’m just questioning your undying loyalty to Trafalgar.
In 2016 I thought Hillary would win and said so, I was wrong, Trafalgar was right and I am not going to make the same mistake again and go against Trafalgar again this time especially with Trump again on the ballot.
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
So peaked or weekend or both? Come back about Wednesday so we can tell you.
Weekend. If you look at the 7-day average curve for cases by day reported on the dashboard, you can see that the number of reported cases has been rising pretty much linearly since the start of October (except for the Excel hiccup). So far, there is no sign that this rate is slowing, but the good news is that it doesn't seem to be exponential either, which would indicate a falling R number (but still above 1).
By day reported is a bad way to look at the data to see if it is exp or not.
Ever hear of "front porch" campaigns? Very successful under the right circumstances.
Actually Trumpsky's antic-frantic- manic campaigning this year reminds yours truly of Andrew Johnson's infamous "Swing Around the Circle" during the critical 1866 midterm elections.
"Swing Around the Circle refers to a disastrous speaking campaign undertaken by United States President Andrew Johnson between August 27 and September 15, 1866, in which he tried to gain support for his mild Reconstruction policies and for his preferred candidates (mostly Democrats) in the forthcoming midterm Congressional elections. The tour's nickname came from the route that the campaign took: "Washington, D.C., to New York, west to Chicago, south to St. Louis, and east through the Ohio River valley back to the nation's capital".
Johnson undertook the speaking tour in the face of increasing opposition in the Northern states and in Washington to his lenient form of Reconstruction in the South, which had led the Southern states largely to revert to the social system that had predominated before the Civil War. Although he believed he could regain the trust of moderate Northern Republicans by exploiting tensions between them and their Radical counterparts on the tour, Johnson only alienated them more. This caused a supporter of Johnson to say of the tour that it would have been better "had it never been made."[1] The tour eventually became the centerpiece of the tenth article of impeachment against Johnson."
Johnson was a war Democrat, not a moderate Northern Republican only there to balance Lincoln's ticket in 1865, most of the areas Trump is going to actually voted for him, many for the first time voting GOP for President for a generation in 2016
My point - which you totally ignore as per usual - is that Andy Johnson's campaigning HURT his own cause.
From the wiki blurb:
Johnson's stop in Cleveland on September 3 marked the turning point in the tour. Because the audience was as large as it had been at previous stops, nothing seemed out of the ordinary; however, the crowd included mobs of hecklers, many of them plants by the Radical Republicans, who goaded Johnson into engaging them in mid-speech; when one of them yelled "Hang Jeff Davis!" in Cleveland, Johnson angrily replied, "Why don't you hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?" When he left the balcony from which he had spoken, reporters heard supporters reminding Johnson to maintain his dignity; Johnson's reply of "I don't care about my dignity" was carried in newspapers across the nation, abruptly ending the tour's favorable press.
Subsequent to this and other vituperative appearances in southern Michigan, the Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby refused to attend Johnson's September 7 Chicago stop, as did the Chicago city council. Johnson nonetheless fared well in Chicago, presenting only a short and pre-written speech. However, his temper got the better of him once more in St. Louis on September 9. Provoked by a heckler, Johnson accused Radical Republicans of deliberately inciting the deadly New Orleans Riot that summer; again compared himself to Jesus, and the Republicans to his betrayers; and defending himself against unmade accusations of tyranny. The following day in Indianapolis, the crowd was so hostile and loud that Johnson was unable to speak at all; even after he retreated, violence and gunfire broke out in the streets between Johnson supporters and opponents, resulting in one man's death. . . .
The press excoriated Johnson badly for his disastrous appearances and speeches. The New York Herald, previously the most supportive newspaper for Johnson in the entire country, stated that "It is mortifying to see a man occupying the lofty position of President of the United States descend from that position and join issue with those who are draggling their garments in the muddy gutters of political vituperation." The president was also the target of the two most important satirical journalists of the era—humorist David Ross Locke (writing in his persona as the backward southerner Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby) and cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created three large illustrations lampooning Johnson and the Swing that became legendary.
Johnson's Republican opponents took quick advantage of their good political fortune. Thaddeus Stevens gave a speech referring to the Swing as "the remarkable circus that traveled through the country" that "cut outside the circle and entered into street brawls with common blackguards." Charles Sumner, meanwhile, gave a stump speech of his own, encouraging his audiences to vote for Republicans in the fall elections because "the President must be taught that usurpation and apostasy cannot prevail."
It's an enterprising band of Welsh Conservatives who plan to turn the oil into plastic for toilet seats and kettles. They will distribute them to the grateful masses who otherwise have no choice but to squat when they poop, and drink cold tea. In the future, balla(r)ds will be sung about these modern-day Robin Hwd heroes.
Ah, good old unfunny, racial stereotyping ...
Have you though of joining forces with the Donald and the Baron Cohen to make a racist film?
Not sure where the racial stereotyping is there. It's mostly referring to the the Welsh Conservatives on this site who are apoplectic at their inability to buy a kettle or a toilet seat in a shop right now. Unless I missed something growing up and there was a stereotype about Welsh folk hijacking oil tankers?
Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief ... We are thieves you know, nicking legs of beef and petrol.
balla(r)ds .... Robin Hwd .... We do speak a funny language, haha ...
Anyhow, carry on doing your Bernard Manning impression, you obviously enjoy it.
(Also, I believe only Big_G is a Conservative amongst the Welsh posters).
You never quite answered my question as to where you're posting from ... while giving us in Wales liberally of your wisdom & your funny stories about your kettle.
I thought he said living in Midlands now but from Newport in Wales
There's a lot of talk on here today of the feckless poor, always on the take, and neglecting their kids.
For a bit of balance, what about the feckless rich, always on the take, and neglecting their kids? Starting with the Prime Minister. And extending octopus-like to all the cronies with government contracts, and the tax-evading millionaires and billionaires that constantly fleece the rest of us. But of course their kids don't go hungry.
By comparison, Marcus Rashford is a paragon of virtuous citizenship.
Hear! Hear!
Some of the worst parenting that I have seen is from parents of kids in private schools. A friend is a school nurse at one, and does a lot of counselling. The stories are heartbreaking.
Couldn't agree more, I have just been talking about malnourished kids though and that tends to be the poor end of the spectrum. Far too many parents that aren't fit in all strata's of life. If the welfare of your kids don't come first physical,mental and educational then you shouldn't be having them.
“Shouldn’t be having kids in the first place” is all very well and good but it’s completely irrelevant. They HAVE had kids. That’s the reality.
Parallel: if the welfare of your people don't come first physical, mental and educational then you shouldn't be having a second coronavirus wave. Should have taken precautions!
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
You'd have to be a fully paid-up Trump supporter already to attend one of these superspreader events.
I no longer come in contact with many parents but see little reason why it will have changed. I do come in contact with a fair few people on UC who complain about how they can't make money reach the end and I notice most of them have the latest mobiles and are on these 50£ a month contracts to keep up to date. Whereas I am on an old note 3 I got for 80£ from CEX and sim only deal from giff gaff costing 10£ a month
It's pretty obvious that there are lots of kids with real problems in getting adeauate nutrition, and lots of parents who don't spend money wisely, with some overlap in families. The former seems the more serious problem, so I favour a simple system tied to food (e.g. vouchers), and if some of it is wasted, that's a cost of addressing the issue and not really a big deal - it's still mostly going to help poorer families. It's like the argument that one shouldn't help after a tsunami because some money might be misappropriated - you can factor that in and still feel it's worth doing.
I would agree with you Nick if I believed that most of those kids would be fed. Sadly as I pointed out the extra 20 a week they already get doesn't seem to have had an effect...what makes you an extra 15 will?
This is also not a pandemic problem but a long term problem we should have addressed long ago by governments of all colours or any colour its been around since I was a kid. In the 21st century we shouldn't have this issue. This to me seems to be just shovel a little more cash and pat ourselves on the back and we will call it sorted and we don't care if it works or not.
Sure, this is a bigger problem than that.
And its resolution will be about education (cooking and money management), esteem (all of us are more likely to eat rubbish when we feel rubbish), and planning and transport (what do you do if the only shop on your estate can only function by charging over the odds for fresh food?)
And it's true that the underlying question- people generally accept the idea of free school meals in termtime, how are struggling families expected to deal with the sudden bulge in food costs in the holidays?- has been around for decades
A long term solution would be great. Even a medium term one, perhaps involving the kitchens in primary schools, would be great. But since half term has just started, I'll settle for a short term one.
It is not in the least that I don't care about the problem as some have suggested merely that I don't think the proposed solution works well enough and that it will be an excuse to kick the problem into the long grass.
I would for example like to see when you apply for fsm that you get a couple of sessions with a budget adviser. Maybe vouchers to use on a basic cookery course. It would cost more than the proposed scheme but might actually start addressing the issue more
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
In 1948 President Truman did similar to Trump and did a 'whistle stop' tour first cross-country to California, for fifteen days; then a six-day tour of the Mid West; followed by a final, hard-hitting ten days in the big population centers of the Northeast and a return trip home to Missouri and hit the GOP candidate Dewey hard at every stop.
Everybody except Truman expected Dewey to win and the polls had Dewey ahead, most newspapers already had headlines prepared for Dewey's victory but on election night Truman won perhaps the biggest upset in US presidential history and the Democrats held the White House for 1 more term
Nicking legs of beef? Petrol? I grew up in a rough area, but I don't remember any of that going on. That "balla(r)ds" gag was flashback humour to a misspelling that someone made on this site a day or two ago.
Oh, and I live in the midlands these days, but I'm from near Newport. Yes, the Welsh Newport. So yeah, I'm a taffy too, although not in the eyes of people from up the valleys who seem to regard Newportonians as a sort of English fifth column.
Leave the Welsh to worry about Wales & the Scots to worry about Scotland.
How critical of Drakeford are the Welsh media?
One of the very significant problems that Wales has (as compared to Scotland) is that there is no real, independent Media.
I think, just speaking generally here, a country is much better governed if it has a robust, critical and investigative media.
The Western Mail has some circulation in South Wales, but it is not much read up in the North. It is of course owned by the Mirror group. So, it is perhaps equivalent to the Scottish Daily Record, which I think is usually regarded as a mouthpiece of the Scottish Labour party. I haven't looked at a copy for years, but I would expect the Western Mail to be supportive of Drakeford, perhaps even fawningly so.
I never watch TV, so I can't say how the Welsh TV media portray Drakeford.
(Incidentally, I don't have that much against Drakeford. He is a bit of a muddled blunderer, but an inoffensive blunderer. A bit like a sheep bleating at you in the middle of the road).
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
I think there's an error in your reasoning there, unfortunately. The 51% isn't of all voters, it's of Likely voters. We don't know exactly how many 'likely' voters will actually vote, but if the poll is right it should approximate to 75% of the registered voters. Therefore those who have already voted would be 51% * 75%, leaving 49% * 75% still to vote.
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1% Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
The Spanish Armada was sighted off the island, enabling the English fleet to deploy to prevent it from entering the Solent, so sealing its fate given the incoming storm.
The remains of the semaphore system that signalled back to Portsmouth whenever any potentially hostile vessels were seen in the Channel during the late 1700s and 1800s is still scattered about the local hills. As well as the Palmerston defences built to see off the French invasion of the late 1800s that never came.
Earlier I walked the dog between showers up to the old Ventnor radar station that features briefly being bombed early in the 1960s Battle of Britain feature film; we also have remains of the observer corps emplacements from where old gents looked out to sea and phoned in details of incoming bombers.
Now we’re on the watch for Nigerian stowaways...
Not much happens here as a rule, but that gives us lots of time to keep a look out to sea and make sure that the rest of you stay safe.....
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
Who are you competing against? I haven’t made any predictions on who’s going to win. I’m just questioning your undying loyalty to Trafalgar.
In 2016 I thought Hillary would win and said so, I was wrong, Trafalgar was right and I am not going to make the same mistake again and go against Trafalgar again this time especially with Trump again on the ballot.
It is always good to make a different mistake, rather than the same one.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
Who are you competing against? I haven’t made any predictions on who’s going to win. I’m just questioning your undying loyalty to Trafalgar.
In 2016 I thought Hillary would win and said so, I was wrong, Trafalgar was right and I am not going to make the same mistake again and go against Trafalgar again this time especially with Trump again on the ballot.
Putting your faith in one source is terrible practice.
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
In 1948 President Truman did similar to Trump and did a 'whistle stop' tour first cross-country to California, for fifteen days; then a six-day tour of the Mid West; followed by a final, hard-hitting ten days in the big population centers of the Northeast and a return trip home to Missouri and hit the GOP candidate Dewey hard at every stop.
Everybody except Truman expected Dewey to win and the polls had Dewey ahead, most newspapers already had headlines prepared for Dewey's victory but on election night Truman won perhaps the biggest upset in US presidential history and the Democrats held the White House for 1 more term
A supporter shouted to Truman, ‘Give ’em hell, Harry!’ To which the famously foul-mouthed but straight talking Truman replied, ‘I don’t give hell. I tell the truth and they think it’s hell.’
Donald Trump would be unable to say that, given how many times he’s been blatantly caught lying.
Another way in which the two cases are not comparable.
Ministry of Social Justice has a somewhat Orwellian ring to it I can't help feeling
He has been talking to HYFUD. I bet they are designing the uniforms and flags. We await the blitzkreig with anticipation. Goebbels lite himself thinking of heading it up as well.
Also @HYUFD , I am genuinely curious about your reasoning, why do you think Biden is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Michigan or Wisconsin when the polling averages give the following approximate average lead for Biden:
Pennsylvania: 5.7% Wisconsin: 6.6% Michigan: 7.6%
As Pennsylvania has the Philadelphia suburbs and the suburban vote is seeing more movement to him than amongst the white working class and it is where he was born, plus with RCP Wisconsin has a smaller Biden lead than Pennsylvania now and Trafalgar has consistently had Biden ahead in PA unlike 2016 but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin and based on 2016 Wisconsin had a slightly bigger Trump lead than PA and also the black vote is bigger percentage wise in Michigan and that has swung slightly to Trump since 2016
So your reasoning is:
Trafalgar says so.
Michigan has more black voters, which have swung slightly towards Trump (says who?).
That’s it?
That is my reasoning, we will see who is right on election night
Who are you competing against? I haven’t made any predictions on who’s going to win. I’m just questioning your undying loyalty to Trafalgar.
In 2016 I thought Hillary would win and said so, I was wrong, Trafalgar was right and I am not going to make the same mistake again and go against Trafalgar again this time especially with Trump again on the ballot.
Putting your faith in one source is terrible practice.
Even doctors strongly advise 2nd opinions in the hope they are wrong.
Re header: TSE, I think you're trying to talk your position.
The 'starting to look' gives it away. Nothing has changed really.
(I'm very slightly with Biden, but very red overall)
Compare "Beginning to look a lot like Christmas." In both cases, nothing has changed really except the passage of time - but that is, we hope, enough.
Sure - there's a time element here. If Biden polls +10% ten years out it's much less important that ten days out. For observers polling error vs decay is a very interesting thing to watch - 'expected polling error' has to be judged to be zero until one takes into account that the market is telling you that its a big number. Decay (Trump magic), who knows what it might be.
There's a debate on the thread as to whether it is a sign of desperation or not.
It's only weird if you believe the polling.
Not going to be the last Dem state Trump will be in before election day.
I seem to recall we had this last time. Why is he in Wisconsin? The guy hasn't a clue etc etc.
Trump campaigned in exactly the same places Romney campaigned in. He had to go to the rust belt as that was the only place with flippable states for him. I just thought, like Romney, he was doomed because of the polling.
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
I think there's an error in your reasoning there, unfortunately. The 51% isn't of all voters, it's of Likely voters. We don't know exactly how many 'likely' voters will actually vote, but if the poll is right it should approximate to 75% of the registered voters. Therefore those who have already voted would be 51% * 75%, leaving 49% * 75% still to vote.
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1% Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
I thought the 51% was of those on the electoral rolls, so 51% of the eligible electorate, not LV. But I could be wrong.
There's a debate on the thread as to whether it is a sign of desperation or not.
It's only weird if you believe the polling.
Not going to be the last Dem state Trump will be in before election day.
I seem to recall we had this last time. Why is he in Wisconsin? The guy hasn't a clue etc etc.
Indeed.
Also important to remember when considering the places the campaigns visit is that there are down-ballot races going on at the same. Even if a candidate is home and dry in a particular state they may go there to help out their party's candidates.
Nicking legs of beef? Petrol? I grew up in a rough area, but I don't remember any of that going on. That "balla(r)ds" gag was flashback humour to a misspelling that someone made on this site a day or two ago.
Oh, and I live in the midlands these days, but I'm from near Newport. Yes, the Welsh Newport. So yeah, I'm a taffy too, although not in the eyes of people from up the valleys who seem to regard Newportonians as a sort of English fifth column.
Leave the Welsh to worry about Wales & the Scots to worry about Scotland.
How critical of Drakeford are the Welsh media?
One of the very significant problems that Wales has (as compared to Scotland) is that there is no real, independent Media.
I think, just speaking generally here, a country is much better governed if it has a robust, critical and investigative media.
The Western Mail has some circulation in South Wales, but it is not much read up in the North. It is of course owned by the Mirror group. So, it is perhaps equivalent to the Scottish Daily Record, which I think is usually regarded as a mouthpiece of the Scottish Labour party. I haven't looked at a copy for years, but I would expect the Western Mail to be supportive of Drakeford, perhaps even fawningly so.
There's a debate on the thread as to whether it is a sign of desperation or not.
It's only weird if you believe the polling.
Not going to be the last Dem state Trump will be in before election day.
I seem to recall we had this last time. Why is he in Wisconsin? The guy hasn't a clue etc etc.
It's one of those things, like queues on election day, that people over analyse, though for a different reason. In this case it is the assumption that the parties must know more about what is going on than random commentators, and their actions are rational reactions to what they know. I don't think that is always the case.
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
In 1948 President Truman did similar to Trump and did a 'whistle stop' tour first cross-country to California, for fifteen days; then a six-day tour of the Mid West; followed by a final, hard-hitting ten days in the big population centers of the Northeast and a return trip home to Missouri and hit the GOP candidate Dewey hard at every stop.
Everybody except Truman expected Dewey to win and the polls had Dewey ahead, most newspapers already had headlines prepared for Dewey's victory but on election night Truman won perhaps the biggest upset in US presidential history and the Democrats held the White House for 1 more term
Note that 1948 was Truman's FIRST (and only) election at the top of the ticket. By 1952, though he wanted to run for re-election, he had enough sense (after initial poor showing in early primaries) to skip a race that he would NOT have won.
Also re: 1948, that year Tom Dewey ran a campaign that was quite similar to Hillary Clinton's 68 years later. With similar results, except that he lost BOTH the EV and popular vote.
Voters ask who abandoned Scranton, Biden or Trump? In the city that’s become an emblem of the stakes in the 2020 race, people debate which of two would-be saviors has forsaken them.
SCRANTON, PA — President Donald Trump has chalked up his upset 2016 victory to America’s “forgotten men and women,” but in this northeastern Pennsylvania city, voters take that theme more literally than most.
In many cases, their feelings about the election boil down to which candidate forgot them. Was it Donald Trump, who promised the region an economic renaissance that never materialized, or Joe Biden, who grew up here from birth until the age of 10 but has since spent his career in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party?
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
I think there's an error in your reasoning there, unfortunately. The 51% isn't of all voters, it's of Likely voters. We don't know exactly how many 'likely' voters will actually vote, but if the poll is right it should approximate to 75% of the registered voters. Therefore those who have already voted would be 51% * 75%, leaving 49% * 75% still to vote.
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1% Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
I thought the 51% was of those on the electoral rolls, so 51% of the eligible electorate, not LV. But I could be wrong.
Nope, I was wrong - 7.3 million RV in NC, of which 3.1 million have already voted.
There's a debate on the thread as to whether it is a sign of desperation or not.
It's only weird if you believe the polling.
Not going to be the last Dem state Trump will be in before election day.
I seem to recall we had this last time. Why is he in Wisconsin? The guy hasn't a clue etc etc.
It's one of those things, like queues on election day, that people over analyse, though for a different reason. In this case it is the assumption that the parties must know more about what is going on than random commentators, and their actions are rational reactions to what they know. I don't think that is always the case.
The Clinton campaign over relied on public polling to drive it's actions. Just jaw dropping compared to the internal polling operation that Obama had,
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
I think there's an error in your reasoning there, unfortunately. The 51% isn't of all voters, it's of Likely voters. We don't know exactly how many 'likely' voters will actually vote, but if the poll is right it should approximate to 75% of the registered voters. Therefore those who have already voted would be 51% * 75%, leaving 49% * 75% still to vote.
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1% Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
I thought the 51% was of those on the electoral rolls, so 51% of the eligible electorate, not LV. But I could be wrong.
I assumed it was of LV, because of the wording on the Tweet ("How vote choice breaks down among likely voters who have and haven't reported voting already").
Meanwhile Trump did campaign stops in Ohio, Wisconsin and NC yesterday and is holding a rally in New Hampshire today, remember in 2000 Gore's non stop final campaigning compared to Bush almost win him the presidency and same with Trump compared to Hillary in 2016 when it actually did win him the presidency
Is an incumbent running around like a headless campaigning chicken a reassuring sign?
In 1948 President Truman did similar to Trump and did a 'whistle stop' tour first cross-country to California, for fifteen days; then a six-day tour of the Mid West; followed by a final, hard-hitting ten days in the big population centers of the Northeast and a return trip home to Missouri and hit the GOP candidate Dewey hard at every stop.
Everybody except Truman expected Dewey to win and the polls had Dewey ahead, most newspapers already had headlines prepared for Dewey's victory but on election night Truman won perhaps the biggest upset in US presidential history and the Democrats held the White House for 1 more term
Note that 1948 was Truman's FIRST (and only) election at the top of the ticket. By 1952, though he wanted to run for re-election, he had enough sense (after initial poor showing in early primaries) to skip a race that he would NOT have won.
Also re: 1948, that year Tom Dewey ran a campaign that was quite similar to Hillary Clinton's 68 years later. With similar results, except that he lost BOTH the EV and popular vote.
1952 though was after 20 years of a Democrat in the White House, a rather different proposition to only 4 years of a Republican in the White House as now and nobody would have beaten IKE that year either.
I think Biden will do better than Dewey and Hillary and will win the popular vote by maybe as much as 3-4% but I still think Trump can eke out an EC win again
Re header: TSE, I think you're trying to talk your position.
The 'starting to look' gives it away. Nothing has changed really.
(I'm very slightly with Biden, but very red overall)
Compare "Beginning to look a lot like Christmas." In both cases, nothing has changed really except the passage of time - but that is, we hope, enough.
Sure - there's a time element here. If Biden polls +10% ten years out it's much less important that ten days out. For observers polling error vs decay is a very interesting thing to watch - 'expected polling error' has to be judged to be zero until one takes into account that the market is telling you that its a big number. Decay (Trump magic), who knows what it might be.
It's not the polling error which decreses as you approach the election. It's that there is less opportunity for the underlying proportions to change by much. Candidate X can be leading by more than the polling margin of error with one month to go, but then the opinions of the population change and candidate Y wins by a whisker. You can't clain that the poll ne month out was wrong.
With those numbers, I’d definitely prefer to have them banked. The yet to votes might either change their mind or be unable or unwilling to vote on the day. That might not be likely, but the likelihood is never going to be zero.
Not only that, but take North Carolina for a second. Let's assume turnout is 75%. (Which would be amazingly high.)
That means the first 51% of voters split 61:36, while the next 24% will split 41:58.
So that's... 61% * 51% + 41% * 24% = 40.95% (out of total turnout of 75%) vs 36% * 51% + 58% * 24% = 32.3%
Now, I have little doubt that the numbers won't be as stark as that. But the evidence from North Carolina, right now, is that Biden is ahead.
I think there's an error in your reasoning there, unfortunately. The 51% isn't of all voters, it's of Likely voters. We don't know exactly how many 'likely' voters will actually vote, but if the poll is right it should approximate to 75% of the registered voters. Therefore those who have already voted would be 51% * 75%, leaving 49% * 75% still to vote.
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1% Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
I thought the 51% was of those on the electoral rolls, so 51% of the eligible electorate, not LV. But I could be wrong.
Nope, I was wrong - 7.3 million RV in NC, of which 3.1 million have already voted.
TimT, what do you make of things in Georgia? How does it feel from your neck of the woods? AND which way do you think your fellow Crackers will go for POTUS and also for US Senate?
Comments
Pennsylvania: 5.7%
Wisconsin: 6.6%
Michigan: 7.6%
Actually Trumpsky's antic-frantic- manic campaigning this year reminds yours truly of Andrew Johnson's infamous "Swing Around the Circle" during the critical 1866 midterm elections.
"Swing Around the Circle refers to a disastrous speaking campaign undertaken by United States President Andrew Johnson between August 27 and September 15, 1866, in which he tried to gain support for his mild Reconstruction policies and for his preferred candidates (mostly Democrats) in the forthcoming midterm Congressional elections. The tour's nickname came from the route that the campaign took: "Washington, D.C., to New York, west to Chicago, south to St. Louis, and east through the Ohio River valley back to the nation's capital".
Johnson undertook the speaking tour in the face of increasing opposition in the Northern states and in Washington to his lenient form of Reconstruction in the South, which had led the Southern states largely to revert to the social system that had predominated before the Civil War. Although he believed he could regain the trust of moderate Northern Republicans by exploiting tensions between them and their Radical counterparts on the tour, Johnson only alienated them more. This caused a supporter of Johnson to say of the tour that it would have been better "had it never been made."[1] The tour eventually became the centerpiece of the tenth article of impeachment against Johnson."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Around_the_Circle#:~:text=Swing Around the Circle refers,Democrats) in the forthcoming midterm
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1319337070008164352?s=09
So what?
Like I've said here before, am 99.46% sure that Trafalgar "polls" are really push-button responses to push-poll questions ("Would your neighbors vote for Joe Biden if they knew he was a life-long Satanist?") then massaged via cookie-cutter demographics.
Right out of the Lee Atwater playbook.
It was confirmed this week that pensions will rise by 2 per cent above inflation next April at a time when real working age incomes are falling. That triple lock policy will cost about £1.5 billion in the coming year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Giving food vouchers to the poorest pupils over the holidays would cost around £20 million a week—or £60 million for the half term and Christmas breaks. The government spent £522 million on encouraging people to Eat Out to Help Out, but apparently cannot find a tenth of that to stop children going hungry. It is a choice to spend the money on pensioners and pizza parlours, not the poor.
And its resolution will be about education (cooking and money management), esteem (all of us are more likely to eat rubbish when we feel rubbish), and planning and transport (what do you do if the only shop on your estate can only function by charging over the odds for fresh food?)
And it's true that the underlying question- people generally accept the idea of free school meals in termtime, how are struggling families expected to deal with the sudden bulge in food costs in the holidays?- has been around for decades
A long term solution would be great. Even a medium term one, perhaps involving the kitchens in primary schools, would be great. But since half term has just started, I'll settle for a short term one.
The 'starting to look' gives it away. Nothing has changed really.
(I'm very slightly with Biden, but very red overall)
No other tittersome meanings. None, do you hear me?
From the wiki blurb:
Johnson's stop in Cleveland on September 3 marked the turning point in the tour. Because the audience was as large as it had been at previous stops, nothing seemed out of the ordinary; however, the crowd included mobs of hecklers, many of them plants by the Radical Republicans, who goaded Johnson into engaging them in mid-speech; when one of them yelled "Hang Jeff Davis!" in Cleveland, Johnson angrily replied, "Why don't you hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?" When he left the balcony from which he had spoken, reporters heard supporters reminding Johnson to maintain his dignity; Johnson's reply of "I don't care about my dignity" was carried in newspapers across the nation, abruptly ending the tour's favorable press.
Subsequent to this and other vituperative appearances in southern Michigan, the Illinois governor Richard J. Oglesby refused to attend Johnson's September 7 Chicago stop, as did the Chicago city council. Johnson nonetheless fared well in Chicago, presenting only a short and pre-written speech. However, his temper got the better of him once more in St. Louis on September 9. Provoked by a heckler, Johnson accused Radical Republicans of deliberately inciting the deadly New Orleans Riot that summer; again compared himself to Jesus, and the Republicans to his betrayers; and defending himself against unmade accusations of tyranny. The following day in Indianapolis, the crowd was so hostile and loud that Johnson was unable to speak at all; even after he retreated, violence and gunfire broke out in the streets between Johnson supporters and opponents, resulting in one man's death. . . .
The press excoriated Johnson badly for his disastrous appearances and speeches. The New York Herald, previously the most supportive newspaper for Johnson in the entire country, stated that "It is mortifying to see a man occupying the lofty position of President of the United States descend from that position and join issue with those who are draggling their garments in the muddy gutters of political vituperation." The president was also the target of the two most important satirical journalists of the era—humorist David Ross Locke (writing in his persona as the backward southerner Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby) and cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created three large illustrations lampooning Johnson and the Swing that became legendary.
Johnson's Republican opponents took quick advantage of their good political fortune. Thaddeus Stevens gave a speech referring to the Swing as "the remarkable circus that traveled through the country" that "cut outside the circle and entered into street brawls with common blackguards." Charles Sumner, meanwhile, gave a stump speech of his own, encouraging his audiences to vote for Republicans in the fall elections because "the President must be taught that usurpation and apostasy cannot prevail."
There's a debate on the thread as to whether it is a sign of desperation or not.
I would for example like to see when you apply for fsm that you get a couple of sessions with a budget adviser. Maybe vouchers to use on a basic cookery course. It would cost more than the proposed scheme but might actually start addressing the issue more
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1320408260478906372?s=20
Everybody except Truman expected Dewey to win and the polls had Dewey ahead, most newspapers already had headlines prepared for Dewey's victory but on election night Truman won perhaps the biggest upset in US presidential history and the Democrats held the White House for 1 more term
Not going to be the last Dem state Trump will be in before election day.
I think, just speaking generally here, a country is much better governed if it has a robust, critical and investigative media.
The Western Mail has some circulation in South Wales, but it is not much read up in the North. It is of course owned by the Mirror group. So, it is perhaps equivalent to the Scottish Daily Record, which I think is usually regarded as a mouthpiece of the Scottish Labour party. I haven't looked at a copy for years, but I would expect the Western Mail to be supportive of Drakeford, perhaps even fawningly so.
I never watch TV, so I can't say how the Welsh TV media portray Drakeford.
(Incidentally, I don't have that much against Drakeford. He is a bit of a muddled blunderer, but an inoffensive blunderer. A bit like a sheep bleating at you in the middle of the road).
So (if we assume that the 'likely voters' are indeed those who end up voting), it's:
Already voted Dem: 61% * 51% = 31.1%
Going to vote Dem: 41% of 49% = 20.1%
Net Dem vote: 51.2% of those who end up voting, which is in line with expectations.
Of course this all assumes that those who say they are going to vote actually do, and a vote in the bag is worth a bit more than a vote in the future, so it's still good news for Biden. Just not as good news as your calculation.
The remains of the semaphore system that signalled back to Portsmouth whenever any potentially hostile vessels were seen in the Channel during the late 1700s and 1800s is still scattered about the local hills. As well as the Palmerston defences built to see off the French invasion of the late 1800s that never came.
Earlier I walked the dog between showers up to the old Ventnor radar station that features briefly being bombed early in the 1960s Battle of Britain feature film; we also have remains of the observer corps emplacements from where old gents looked out to sea and phoned in details of incoming bombers.
Now we’re on the watch for Nigerian stowaways...
Not much happens here as a rule, but that gives us lots of time to keep a look out to sea and make sure that the rest of you stay safe.....
Donald Trump would be unable to say that, given how many times he’s been blatantly caught lying.
Another way in which the two cases are not comparable.
We await the blitzkreig with anticipation.
Goebbels lite himself thinking of heading it up as well.
I am afraid Iwll have to break my promise and make an early call of Nevada for Biden.
Because Horsies.
https://twitter.com/votolatino/status/1320401436912607235
Also important to remember when considering the places the campaigns visit is that there are down-ballot races going on at the same. Even if a candidate is home and dry in a particular state they may go there to help out their party's candidates.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drakeford-shopping-supermarkets-lockdown-essential-19154955
I see the chap who ripped off the plastic covering shelves in a supermarket is to be charged with criminal damage.....
Also re: 1948, that year Tom Dewey ran a campaign that was quite similar to Hillary Clinton's 68 years later. With similar results, except that he lost BOTH the EV and popular vote.
Voters ask who abandoned Scranton, Biden or Trump?
In the city that’s become an emblem of the stakes in the 2020 race, people debate which of two would-be saviors has forsaken them.
SCRANTON, PA — President Donald Trump has chalked up his upset 2016 victory to America’s “forgotten men and women,” but in this northeastern Pennsylvania city, voters take that theme more literally than most.
In many cases, their feelings about the election boil down to which candidate forgot them. Was it Donald Trump, who promised the region an economic renaissance that never materialized, or Joe Biden, who grew up here from birth until the age of 10 but has since spent his career in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/25/scranton-election-biden-trump-pennsylvania-432062
https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/25/fake-melania-conspiracy-theory-re-emerges-as-photo-goes-viral-13477043/
Railway to me conjures up a system, train means a specific part.
I think Biden will do better than Dewey and Hillary and will win the popular vote by maybe as much as 3-4% but I still think Trump can eke out an EC win again