Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
They won't though. 48-52 is most likely, possibly 49-51 depending on the run offs. The Democrats will rarely have a better set of seats than this to contest and they must be seriously disappointed about the Senate. Going backwards in the House wasn't great either.
Trump isn't going to be on the ballot for the runoffs but Stacey Abrahams will still be in Georgia.
Yep, i mentioned this yesterday. It is both possible for Trump to have trailed the Senate candidates but still not have been a drain on their ticket, indeed a net positive.
Trump would have trailed many Senate candidates because of anti-Trump Republicans who split their vote. But he will have also brought many Trumpists with him to the Republican ticket who won't be there in a contest when he is not participating.
So in eg. the Georgia runoff, the votes for the Democrat candidates might all still be there. But the votes for the GOP candidates may be shorn of many of their Trumpist element.
CNN are painting a picture of a WH in complete disarray right now. People desperately looking for new jobs, people tiptoeing round the president and trying to manage him while he sits by the TV and complains how no-one is supporting him. Mark Meadows apparently being 'unhelpful' by feeding Trump's delusions.
CNN are painting a picture of a WH in complete disarray right now. People desperately looking for new jobs, people tiptoeing round the president and trying to manage him while he sits by the TV and complains how no-one is supporting him. Mark Meadows apparently being 'unhelpful' by feeding Trump's delusions.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
They won't though. 48-52 is most likely, possibly 49-51 depending on the run offs. The Democrats will rarely have a better set of seats than this to contest and they must be seriously disappointed about the Senate. Going backwards in the House wasn't great either.
Really? My understanding was that this was actually a very tough year for the Democrats in the Senate.
No, actually fairly decent. CO was a virtual shoe-in, AZ, NC and ME were all seen very much in play. It was thought likely one GA seat would go to a run off but not two. Only AL a dead cert for the GOP, MI a possibility
Biden and Harris to speak to the nation in prime time tonight. Can only be an acceptance speech.
Will he give an acceptance speech f the networks havent declared? If these votes in PA dont come in today, will they call it? Maybe he will give a halfway acceptance speech and finish it tomorrow
Trump needs at least one of the remaining states to move in his direction. If they all continue to move against him even he might decide it's best to concede.
PA says about 10,000 votes arrived after Election Day but before the deadline today, and hence are potentially in play in a legal action to determine their eligibility
If you work on the 80/20 ratio that means potentially a difference of 6,000 in Trumpy favour if they are disregarded
PA lady should have had the number of segregated ballots to hand I think. Unless they're just being kept in a box somewhere to be counted dead last and they don't know the number. Perhaps that's the case.
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
Hence why I think you will see the GOP hunker down on the fraud issue. Letting Trump go might have been acceptable but not all 3 branches to the Democrats. As you said, revenge would be on the menu.
Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
Biden and Harris to speak to the nation in prime time tonight. Can only be an acceptance speech.
Will he give an acceptance speech f the networks havent declared? If these votes in PA dont come in today, will they call it? Maybe he will give a halfway acceptance speech and finish it tomorrow
They must have been speaking with the networks. I imagine they may have been told off the record that they'll be getting a call if the vote rises above X and have mapped it with their projections.
As a lurker who rarely posts, I just wanted to thank all the regulars for all the insights in the election. I've never followed a US Presidential election especially closely before, and now feel I know a lot more about it for next time. I lost money on Trump but as that was an insurance bet to buy something to drown my sorrows if he won, I don't mind!
CNN are painting a picture of a WH in complete disarray right now. People desperately looking for new jobs, people tiptoeing round the president and trying to manage him while he sits by the TV and complains how no-one is supporting him. Mark Meadows apparently being 'unhelpful' by feeding Trump's delusions.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Fake news. The fire in 64 didn't do Nero any particular harm (he started it), and had no particular bearing on his demise in 68.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
From that thread it sounds like the US is stricter at weeding out the votes of people who've died between mailing in a ballot and election day than the UK is. In fact I don't think British EROs would have any way to find out. Here in the US the Social Security Administration maintains a master "death index" which is a public record, although in practice I do wonder how fast it gets updated for localities to use for voter vitality checking!
I might be wrong, but I was of the impression that the minor technicality of death before election day doesn't disqualify you from voting in the UK, provided you remember to send in your postal vote beforehand.
You didn't even need to dfo that for the Scottish devolution referendum in 1978, under the Cunningham amendment. The unionist side, who were in charge, assumed you voted No, effectively.
CNN are painting a picture of a WH in complete disarray right now. People desperately looking for new jobs, people tiptoeing round the president and trying to manage him while he sits by the TV and complains how no-one is supporting him. Mark Meadows apparently being 'unhelpful' by feeding Trump's delusions.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Fake news. The fire in 64 didn't do Nero any particular harm (he started it), and had no particular bearing on his demise in 68.
Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
NH was won by Hillary in 2016.
Exactly.
Yes sorry i was wrong. Although i don't think it was called on the night. Just many assumed she would win. I've checked and neither NH nor Michigan were actually called until several days after the election. But Trump had already won by then.
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
They won't though. 48-52 is most likely, possibly 49-51 depending on the run offs. The Democrats will rarely have a better set of seats than this to contest and they must be seriously disappointed about the Senate. Going backwards in the House wasn't great either.
Trump isn't going to be on the ballot for the runoffs but Stacey Abrahams will still be in Georgia.
I certainly wouldn't write off the Dems chances of taking both Georgia senate seats, even though Purdue as incumbent has a significant cushion. Bear in mind that newly elected Presidents-elect get a honeymoon - even Trump had a net +5 approval rating at the point of his inauguration. Some of that may reflect on the Democrats. On the flip side, there could be a reaction against the genuine rejection of democratic norms that we've seen from Trump over the past couple of days. More generally, can Trump energise his now-demoralised coalition of supporters to turn out to vote for someone else when he's not on the ballot?
I'm not saying that the Dems will win both, simply warning against writing off the Dems. After the roller coaster of the last three days, I'm loathe to make predictions.
Biden is currently leading by 9,612 in Lackawanna County in Pennsylvania where his home town of Scranton is located. It would have been interesting if that had been more than his winning margin in the state but it seems unlikely now.
Trump needs at least one of the remaining states to move in his direction. If they all continue to move against him even he might decide it's best to concede.
He's not going to concede full stop. He "believes" he's been the victim of massive voting fraud. The numbers make absolutely zero difference.
As a lurker who rarely posts, I just wanted to thank all the regulars for all the insights in the election. I've never followed a US Presidential election especially closely before, and now feel I know a lot more about it for next time. I lost money on Trump but as that was an insurance bet to buy something to drown my sorrows if he won, I don't mind!
Welcome and glad you enjoyed the election ride,,,not that its over fully yet ofc
PA says about 10,000 votes arrived after Election Day but before the deadline today, and hence are potentially in play in a legal action to determine their eligibility
If you work on the 80/20 ratio that means potentially a difference of 6,000 in Trumpy favour if they are disregarded
It's quite possible that many of them will have crossover with Provisional ballots. There must be a lot of people who voted on the day worried that their postal vote hadn't been returned.
Some good points, but the "half-wits with finance degrees who run everything" , and don't care about the opioid crisis in post-industrial towns, are the exact fruit of the New Right and Reaganism, not the east and west coast "liberal elite" that Fox so professes to despise. In fact the same Reaganite-populist alliance, tied to Wall St, gave birth to Fox News and talk radio. America's cultural amnesia and confusion is truly appalling.
So you think there were no dodgy corporations who risked public safety for profit before Reagan? Really?
Not at all ; but post-Reagan finance-capitalism was in the ascendant, and as in Britain, the "people with finance degrees" , that Carlsson mentions, had far more leverage over every level of society.
And, inasmuch as that is true (which isn't much, except that more people have degrees than 50 years ago), what on earth does it have to do with Talk Radio, Fox News, or the opioid crisis?
Without wanting to be rude, as I've been developing the point, it should be fairly obvious by now ; Reagan built a new conservative coalition, which included two major centres : Wall St and the advocates of financial deregulation and fiscal conservatism on the one hand, and religious-conservatives and national-populists, often locally minded, on the other.
Murdoch and some others, including conservative talk radio, were the main cheerleaders for this new coalition and manifesto in the media. What Carlsson is decrying is not only baked into modern American conservatism, but something that his part of the media landscape is specifically historically linked to, too.
That's a rather selective account of both 49-state-winning Reagan and Obama-supporting Murdoch.
Clinton, Blair and Obama were all to a certain extent the fruit of Reaganism and Thatcherism, though. Murdoch did not support Carter, Ford or Callaghan ; his aim was to help end the postwar consensus, and assist the rise both of deregulated and transnational finance capitalism and conservative populism.
Yeah yeah, but coming back to the point, your analysis falls over at the very first hurdle: "Reagan built a new conservative coalition, which included two major centres : Wall St and the advocates of financial deregulation and fiscal conservatism on the one hand, and religious-conservatives and national-populists, often locally minded, on the other". No he didn't - not unless you expand your definition of the 'coalition' so far that it becomes completely meaningless: he appealed to lots of voters, urban, suburban and rural, all over the country, some very conservative, many less so, in every state, and particularly to ordinary working Americans.
I don't agree here. Reagan captured a wide diversity of people, but the three prongs of his coalition and appeal were the same all over America ; those nostalgic for the moral and national certainties of the 1950s over the 1960s ; the specifically Christian Right ; and the new economic and fiscal conservatives.
Economic and fiscal conservatives? The idea that the Trump GOP supports a balanced budget is laughable.
The Reagan Republicans did not support a balanced budget either.
PA says about 10,000 votes arrived after Election Day but before the deadline today, and hence are potentially in play in a legal action to determine their eligibility
If you work on the 80/20 ratio that means potentially a difference of 6,000 in Trumpy favour if they are disregarded
My guess is any votes involved in that legal action will be dumped yes, but the numbers won't make enough difference to matter
Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
NH was won by Hillary in 2016.
Exactly.
Yes sorry i was wrong. Although i don't think it was called on the night. Just many assumed she would win. I've checked and neither NH nor Michigan were actually called until several days after the election. But Trump had already won by then.
The no call on NH was hugely beneficial to me repairing my balance. It was plainly obvious she had won.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Fake news. The fire in 64 didn't do Nero any particular harm (he started it), and had no particular bearing on his demise in 68.
Wish twitter had been around in Nero's time... Not so much fake as slightly misdated. Nero's death in 68 was at his own hands, after being declared a public enemy by the State. I imagine the atmosphere in his Domus Aurea HQ ("Golden House" for the barbarians) must have been almost exactly as numbertwelve describes
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
My pre-election estimate was around 20 per cent for Trump based on one close call in 3 of his south-eastern states (e.g. Georgia) and one close call in Ohio or Pennsylvania, minus some scenic detours that were polling credibly for a couple of per cent here and there like Texas, plus some comeback potential, but I underestimated his potential in Wisconsin because he polled so poorly there, so perhaps it should have been more like 25 per cent. Still knowing what we do, I find it easier to rationalise a prior 10% than 34%.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
I thought the story was that there was loads of dodgy stuff going on in Chicago, but Nixon didn't go down that route, depending on what you believe, either for the sake of the image of the American Democratic Process, or because the Democrats had a whole bundle of counter examples in Republican states that making a challenge would have been futile.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
Very incoherent article. First correctly states, but then ignores, the fact that a statement that a is more likely than b is not proven wrong by b happening. Also overlooks that a bet is not a forecast of the outcome ; if it forecasts anything it forecasts the movement of prices from time of placing onwards. A bet on Trump cashed out when he went odds on is just as good as a bet on Biden, nothing wrong about it.
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
They won't though. 48-52 is most likely, possibly 49-51 depending on the run offs. The Democrats will rarely have a better set of seats than this to contest and they must be seriously disappointed about the Senate. Going backwards in the House wasn't great either.
Really? My understanding was that this was actually a very tough year for the Democrats in the Senate.
No, actually fairly decent. CO was a virtual shoe-in, AZ, NC and ME were all seen very much in play. It was thought likely one GA seat would go to a run off but not two. Only AL a dead cert for the GOP, MI a possibility
Republican seats up for election in NC, WI & PA in two years’ time, so 2022 is not without prospects for the Democrats.
I reckon Kamala Harris will be the Democratic candidate next time.
I imagine she'll be used for other things than attending the funerals of foreign leaders. She strikes me as a real feisty human being.
Maybe she'll be used to meet minor leaders Johnson.
OMG such a lazy stereotype! Men are assertive, but women are "feisty"
Typical pale, stale, male!
This rersult is a bit of a setback for your theory that charisma beats boring, isn't it? Perhaps like most theories it can be true up to a point but there's an extreme where it breaks down.
Yes it is a bit of a setback for it isn't it? Especially as the incumbent lost. I would have taken it as evidence I was right had Trump won, so have to say the opposite now he hasn't.
To be fair, the less charismatic candidate got most votes last time as well. Maybe charisma just adds a couple of points onto opinion polls
*Assuming Trump WAS considered the more charismatic, I didn't see polling for it
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
Apparently because the State Department isn't purely a foreign-facing organisation and got the name when given some (frankly minor) domestic responsibilities.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
From the State Department's website: Frequently Asked Questions Why is the Department called the Department of State?
On September 15, 1789, Congress passed An Act to provide for the safe keeping of the Acts, Records, and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes. This law changed the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State because certain domestic duties were assigned to the agency. These included:
Receipt, publication, distribution, and preservation of the laws of the United States; Preparation, sealing, and recording of the commissions of Presidential appointees; Preparation and authentication of copies of records and authentication of copies under the Department's seal; Custody of the Great Seal of the United States; Custody of the records of the former Secretary of the Continental Congress, except for those of the Treasury and War Departments.
Other domestic duties that the Department was responsible for at various times included issuance of patents on inventions, publication of the census returns, management of the mint, control of copyrights, and regulation of immigration. Most domestic functions have been transferred to other agencies. Those that remain in the Department are: storage and use of the Great Seal, performance of protocol functions for the White House, drafting of certain Presidential proclamations, and replies to public inquiries.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Fake news. The fire in 64 didn't do Nero any particular harm (he started it), and had no particular bearing on his demise in 68.
Wish twitter had been around in Nero's time...
Not so much fake as slightly misdated. Nero's death in 68 was at his own hands, after being declared a public enemy by the State. I imagine the atmosphere in his Domus Aurea HQ ("Golden House" for the barbarians) must have been almost exactly as numbertwelve describes
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
I guess its possible Trump might challenge Biden to decide the election in the Colosseum but sounds a bit extreme even for him
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
Originally, it was the chief executive role in the government, holding the seal of state, and managing all domestic and foreign policy implementation under the direction of the President and Congress. However, over the years all the domestic functions have been transferred to other departments. Unlike in the U.K., however, it has never been renamed.
Edit - if you check your passport, you will observe it is issued by ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State,’ with no reference to it being the Foreign Secreatary. A similar historical curiosity.
I think it was much like that in Ancient Rome for the Nero campaign team as they watched the flames rise higher.
Fake news. The fire in 64 didn't do Nero any particular harm (he started it), and had no particular bearing on his demise in 68.
Wish twitter had been around in Nero's time...
Not so much fake as slightly misdated. Nero's death in 68 was at his own hands, after being declared a public enemy by the State. I imagine the atmosphere in his Domus Aurea HQ ("Golden House" for the barbarians) must have been almost exactly as numbertwelve describes
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
No one builds circuses like I do. I make the best circuses.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
I believe it oversees domestic stuff too. Like the Mint and the Census. And it was originally Foreign Affairs for the first few months. Why? I don't know. Presumably because the Federal government was originally intended to be very small. Just foreign, currency and census. Therefore everything. Rest left to the States.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
It is something to do with the original responsibilities.
The Secretary of State was also responsible for domestic things like the census and the mint, as well as Foreign Affairs.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
Originally, it was the chief executive role in the government, holding the seal of state, and managing all domestic and foreign policy implementation under the direction of the President and Congress. However, over the years all the domestic functions have been transferred to other departments. Unlike in the U.K., however, it has never been renamed.
Edit - if you check your passport, you will observe it is issued by ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State,’ with no reference to it being the Foreign Secreatary.
At a guess, I would expect Fox to not fight Trump but rather choose to support him. The risk to their business model is too great. Plus they will never get any plaudits for tacking to the left.
They have a fine line. They never want to be associated with a loser, but they also don't want to upset their base.
My guess is that they accept Biden has won (and he has won), and find a new champion.
I hope everyone has money on Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas for Next President.
To spend your winnings on a radiation-proof bolthole in New Zealand?
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
Illinois also wasn't decisive in that Nixon would also have needed to win Missouri (or something else, but Missouri was closest).
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
A question for the PB brains trust. Why is the Foreign Ministry of the USA called the State Department and the Foreign Minister The Secretary of State?
Originally, it was the chief executive role in the government, holding the seal of state, and managing all domestic and foreign policy implementation under the direction of the President and Congress. However, over the years all the domestic functions have been transferred to other departments. Unlike in the U.K., however, it has never been renamed.
Edit - if you check your passport, you will observe it is issued by ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State,’ with no reference to it being the Foreign Secreatary.
Perhaps it should be.
Possibly, but the American system is different from ours. We have, technically, only one office of Secretary of State. However, since I think 1660 it has always been held in commission, by several individuals, so they have clearly identified responsibilities delineated by the PM of the day.
However, in America the new departments are created by legislation, so instead of Secretaries of State for X they have Secretaries for individual jobs,
She literally sees EVERYTHING through the prism of Indy doesn't she? I have some respect for Sturgeon as a politician. But that stereotype of her being completely and utterly consumed with nothing but a referendum is easy to make.
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
They’ll want a 0.5pt lead I think - waiting for a nice big ballot dump
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
Why the reluctance? I thought there was normally a rush to be the first to make the call?
The irony of this debate is one reason for Brexit is the EU’s incredibly foolish habit of holding referendums multiple times until they got he answer they wanted.
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
Why the reluctance? I thought there was normally a rush to be the first to make the call?
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
Why the reluctance? I thought there was normally a rush to be the first to make the call?
Perhaps everyone wants to watch Fox make it first, and then see the alt right tear itself to pieces.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
Illinois also wasn't decisive in that Nixon would also have needed to win Missouri (or something else, but Missouri was closest).
True in the sense Nixon needed Texas where he lost by 44K votes to win (which was LBJ's state of course) but he was pushed to ask for recounts elsewhere but decided not to. Arguably, if he had won Illinois, he would have been a lot closer.
A Fox without Hannity and Carlson would be a much more sane Fox.
I saw Hannity earlier today. It was remarkable. Each guest was invited to consider what could be done about the law being broken. The law in question was partisan observation of the count. Not happening he said repeatedly. Except when it was happening from a distance of 100 feet (well actually 6 feet according to the court case, but who's counting).
Why a republican administration in Georgia was a party to this conspiracy was totally ignored. The fact that this showed exactly the same trend as we saw in Pennsylvania there totally ignored. It was incitement to violence and taking the law into your own hands. It was a disgrace.
I think elements of the Right are going to be driven totally mad by a Biden victory.
I think elements of the Right are totally mad already. But Biden won't do a whole lot to rock the boat. If he has any idea what he actually wants to do as President he's kept it pretty quiet so far.
In the Dems take the Senate then revenge is on the menu.
They won't though. 48-52 is most likely, possibly 49-51 depending on the run offs. The Democrats will rarely have a better set of seats than this to contest and they must be seriously disappointed about the Senate. Going backwards in the House wasn't great either.
Really? My understanding was that this was actually a very tough year for the Democrats in the Senate.
No, actually fairly decent. CO was a virtual shoe-in, AZ, NC and ME were all seen very much in play. It was thought likely one GA seat would go to a run off but not two. Only AL a dead cert for the GOP, MI a possibility
Republican seats up for election in NC, WI & PA in two years’ time, so 2022 is not without prospects for the Democrats.
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
They’ll want a 0.5pt lead I think - waiting for a nice big ballot dump
In the meantime poor Biden is trying to decide if his speech later will be an acceptance one or 'what Kamala and I did today' one.
Have North Carolina actually been counting any votes since Tuesday? They certainly haven't been reporting any. Could we suddenly find in a few days that they still had significant number of votes left and they announce them all at once and Biden wins?
I think what a lot of people haven't really appreciated in all this, is that it is extremely unusual in US Presidential elections for the winners not to be agreed until all the votes are counted. There are all these complaints about how slowly states are counting votes, but all they are doing is what they always do.
Normally they count enough for the result to be called by the networks on the night or shortly after, and then wind their way towards the certification deadline at a leisurely pace. And they simply have barely changed their processes for the new situation.
I think i'm right in thinking that on election date and for many days after it was assumed that New Hampshire had been won by Trump. It was only much later that Clinton finally overhauled him. Arguably the belief that she had lost it on election night probably changed some of the perception of the situation on the night and she might not have conceded so quickly if it hadn't.
Worth noting the North Carolina Senate and Presidential races both have very similar vote margins. There's therefore a small chance that Mr Tills will also be looking for a new job.
I think on 2016 election night NH was called for Hillary
NH was won by Hillary in 2016.
Exactly.
Yes sorry i was wrong. Although i don't think it was called on the night. Just many assumed she would win. I've checked and neither NH nor Michigan were actually called until several days after the election. But Trump had already won by then.
I have no idea what the link is between masks and poppies. Help?
Freedom/liberty in Covid-19 denier world.
Indeed. Those storming the beaches at Normandy did so for the freedom to be infected and killed by some entitled arsehole in Tesco. Nozick has plenty to answer for.
She does know that during the two world wars people accepted rather more stringent restrictions on their liberty than having to wear a mask in Tesco's? What a fucking moron.
I have no idea what the link is between masks and poppies. Help?
Freedom/liberty in Covid-19 denier world.
Indeed. Those storming the beaches at Normandy did so for the freedom to be infected and killed by some entitled arsehole in Tesco. Nozick has plenty to answer for.
If we’re infected by arseholes, what’s the point in all these bloody masks?
Ah, has Scotland declared unilateral independence then?
You'd have thought it. Sturgeon tweeting about "forward to independence" but not sure how practical that is, particularly as we are in the midst of a pandemic. I do wish the media would start to hold her to account more - otherwise it's a free ride
PA says about 10,000 votes arrived after Election Day but before the deadline today, and hence are potentially in play in a legal action to determine their eligibility
If you work on the 80/20 ratio that means potentially a difference of 6,000 in Trumpy favour if they are disregarded
My guess is any votes involved in that legal action will be dumped yes, but the numbers won't make enough difference to matter
AIUI those votes have already been segregated as a precaution and not included in the count, according to Nate Cohen and a few others.
Ah, has Scotland declared unilateral independence then?
You'd have thought it. Sturgeon tweeting about "forward to independence" but not sure how practical that is, particularly as we are in the midst of a pandemic. I do wish the media would start to hold her to account more - otherwise it's a free ride
You're obviously not familiar with the Scottish media.
And it's the Tories who keep on going on about indyref. Vide Messrs Jack and Johnson only today/yesterday-ish.
Ah, has Scotland declared unilateral independence then?
You'd have thought it. Sturgeon tweeting about "forward to independence" but not sure how practical that is, particularly as we are in the midst of a pandemic. I do wish the media would start to hold her to account more - otherwise it's a free ride
You're obviously not familiar with the Scottish media.
And it's the Tories who keep on going on about indyref. Vide Messrs Jack and Johnson only today/yesterday-ish.
Sturgeon has literally spent the day talking about indyred2...
CNN are being quite funny now. We can't call PA because Biden is not inevitable. But its inevitable folks. But no call, Trump could catch up. But he won't.
Why the reluctance? I thought there was normally a rush to be the first to make the call?
Perhaps everyone wants to watch Fox make it first, and then see the alt right tear itself to pieces.
Meanwhile Fox clings to the fact that no-one else has called it to maintain its editorial line on air
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
Illinois also wasn't decisive in that Nixon would also have needed to win Missouri (or something else, but Missouri was closest).
True in the sense Nixon needed Texas where he lost by 44K votes to win (which was LBJ's state of course) but he was pushed to ask for recounts elsewhere but decided not to. Arguably, if he had won Illinois, he would have been a lot closer.
Well, by definition Nixon would have been "closer" if he'd won Illinois. But it wasn't decisive because, as I say, he needed more.
Like this one, it was fairly close in a few places (and indeed much closer than this one on popular vote). But there's an awful lot of mythology about 1960 - like this one, the electoral college win was not knockout but fairly comfy.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
I thought the story was that there was loads of dodgy stuff going on in Chicago, but Nixon didn't go down that route, depending on what you believe, either for the sake of the image of the American Democratic Process, or because the Democrats had a whole bundle of counter examples in Republican states that making a challenge would have been futile.
Ahh, the old "the dead have voted" schtick. The oldest moan in the book.
One thing we forget over here is the extent to which suspicious practices happen in the States and how they have seriously impacted elections. The result in one Presidential election (1960) was very likely determined by voter fraud (Mayor Daley adding the votes in Cook County) and it's being a problem at various levels. Ironically, one of the major reasons why Hillary could not get a recount in Michigan in 2016 was that state law forbids any precinct being included in the recount where the turnout exceeds the number of registered voters, which was exactly the situation in many of Detroit's precincts (the explanation given at the time was that many of the machines broke down on election day and the scanners, where votes were fed into, may have mistakenly counted ballots twice).
So before everyone rushes off and says that these are all nut jobs who can't accept defeat, it's worthwhile putting into in the context of what has gone on previously.
And, no, that is not me trying to say "it's rigged!" but it is me trying to explain why many of the establishment Republican politicians are not calling out Trump on this and why, generally so far, the Republican establishment seem behind him.
It's also why this whole saga is likely to drag out.
I have seen it suggested that the Illinois result did not prove decisive in 1960 - ie that Kennedy would still have won the Electoral College without it.
I’ve seen it called a complete myth. What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
I thought the story was that there was loads of dodgy stuff going on in Chicago, but Nixon didn't go down that route, depending on what you believe, either for the sake of the image of the American Democratic Process, or because the Democrats had a whole bundle of counter examples in Republican states that making a challenge would have been futile.
Ah, has Scotland declared unilateral independence then?
You'd have thought it. Sturgeon tweeting about "forward to independence" but not sure how practical that is, particularly as we are in the midst of a pandemic. I do wish the media would start to hold her to account more - otherwise it's a free ride
You're obviously not familiar with the Scottish media.
And it's the Tories who keep on going on about indyref. Vide Messrs Jack and Johnson only today/yesterday-ish.
Sturgeon has literally spent the day talking about indyred2...
Well, that makes a change from (a) the bug and (b) the Tories doing it. We do have an election for the Scottish Parliament coming up, you know.
Comments
Can only be an acceptance speech.
Trump would have trailed many Senate candidates because of anti-Trump Republicans who split their vote. But he will have also brought many Trumpists with him to the Republican ticket who won't be there in a contest when he is not participating.
So in eg. the Georgia runoff, the votes for the Democrat candidates might all still be there. But the votes for the GOP candidates may be shorn of many of their Trumpist element.
If you work on the 80/20 ratio that means potentially a difference of 6,000 in Trumpy favour if they are disregarded
I'm not saying that the Dems will win both, simply warning against writing off the Dems. After the roller coaster of the last three days, I'm loathe to make predictions.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president?iid=politics_election_national_map
Mr Cliche himself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysuhNov6Ow
What recounts & court cases they had actually increased Kennedy’s margin.
Not so much fake as slightly misdated. Nero's death in 68 was at his own hands, after being declared a public enemy by the State. I imagine the atmosphere in his Domus Aurea HQ ("Golden House" for the barbarians) must have been almost exactly as numbertwelve describes
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
https://www.snp.org/the-snps-candidates-for-the-2021-scottish-parliament-election/
To be fair, the less charismatic candidate got most votes last time as well. Maybe charisma just adds a couple of points onto opinion polls
*Assuming Trump WAS considered the more charismatic, I didn't see polling for it
https://history.state.gov/about/faq/why-called-state
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Department called the Department of State?
On September 15, 1789, Congress passed An Act to provide for the safe keeping of the Acts, Records, and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes. This law changed the name of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State because certain domestic duties were assigned to the agency. These included:
Receipt, publication, distribution, and preservation of the laws of the United States;
Preparation, sealing, and recording of the commissions of Presidential appointees;
Preparation and authentication of copies of records and authentication of copies under the Department's seal;
Custody of the Great Seal of the United States;
Custody of the records of the former Secretary of the Continental Congress, except for those of the Treasury and War Departments.
Other domestic duties that the Department was responsible for at various times included issuance of patents on inventions, publication of the census returns, management of the mint, control of copyrights, and regulation of immigration. Most domestic functions have been transferred to other agencies. Those that remain in the Department are: storage and use of the Great Seal, performance of protocol functions for the White House, drafting of certain Presidential proclamations, and replies to public inquiries.
https://history.state.gov/about/faq/why-called-state
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
I guess its possible Trump might challenge Biden to decide the election in the Colosseum but sounds a bit extreme even for him
Edit - if you check your passport, you will observe it is issued by ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State,’ with no reference to it being the Foreign Secreatary. A similar historical curiosity.
Of course, in those days, Emperors were more likely to be killed gruesomely than gladiators. Yet they still behaved like arseholes.
No one builds circuses like I do. I make the best circuses.
Like the Mint and the Census. And it was originally Foreign Affairs for the first few months. Why? I don't know. Presumably because the Federal government was originally intended to be very small.
Just foreign, currency and census. Therefore everything. Rest left to the States.
The Secretary of State was also responsible for domestic things like the census and the mint, as well as Foreign Affairs.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1324768423147130881
However, in America the new departments are created by legislation, so instead of Secretaries of State for X they have Secretaries for individual jobs,
Let us deport these Britain haters.
https://twitter.com/jennyrickson/status/1324405177416327170
Our thoughts are with him.
@Nigelb not sure it's a myth:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-26-jfk-chicago-politics_N.htm
https://twitter.com/GlobalProgresMB/status/1324792096293879808
Obviously that doesn't apply to Aaron Bell.
Nozick has plenty to answer for.
https://twitter.com/ddayen/status/1324792315630645249?s=19
Italy also broke its daily record with 37,809 new cases as lockdown measures are introduced in the north
Other countries including Switzerland and Austria have warned their intensive unit beds are already filling
And it's the Tories who keep on going on about indyref. Vide Messrs Jack and Johnson only today/yesterday-ish.
https://www.poppyshop.org.uk/products/the-royal-british-legion-face-covering
Would befit a choice between two tossers.
What a glorious day.
Like this one, it was fairly close in a few places (and indeed much closer than this one on popular vote). But there's an awful lot of mythology about 1960 - like this one, the electoral college win was not knockout but fairly comfy.
Whether or not it’s true is another matter.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/10/was-nixon-robbed.html