Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
I think is it is, in part, a reaction to Trumps nonsense about declaring himself re-elected.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
On the GOP side if Trump does not decide to run again
You still banging that drum?
There is not one single scrap of a chance that Donald Trump will be permitted to run again for the GOP. He's a loser. And he's dragging down their party, of which he's not really a member.
He might go all Nigel Farage and campaign as an independent to the Trump Rump. He might do it just to wreck those in the GOP who will soon be dropping him like a stone.
You are forgetting GOP congressmen do not key a say in who their candidate for President is as Tory MPs get a say in who their leader is, it is Republican voters who choose and Trump's brand is still more popular with them than with the GOP establishment, remember Trump will still have got almost 48% of the vote even if he loses and the second highest popular voteshare for the Republican nominee since 1988 after the 50.7% George W Bush got in 2004.
That will help Donald Trump Jnr and Pence even if Trump does not run again
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We arepast the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
I reached that point in 1947.
We're now further from my birth than my birth was from the moment when we were further from your birth than your birth was from the end of the second world war.
More worryingly, we are now several years past the year that Back to the Future II was set in...
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Should that scenario come to pass and a very angry Donald Trump prevails, what would your advice be to Democrat lawmakers? Should they stay and face the full force of Trump's ire and vengeance, or should they high-tail it out, pronto, as political asylum seekers?
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
I think is it is, in part, a reaction to Trumps nonsense about declaring himself re-elected.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
Agreed. They're trying to avoid playing into his narrative. If it wasn't for his insanity I think this would in a normal year have been called already and the POTUS given his concession speech.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
There were questions asked in 2016 about how one should address the First Gentleman, to which the obvious answer was “Mr President”.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
On one level I'm delighted if this nonsense drags on. The GOP are playing into Democrat hands for the Georgia runoffs. Disunity, dishonesty and disenfranchisement are a crap look when asking the electorate to vote for you again.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Given how hard the Democrats had to fight to get people to turn out even against Trump after 4 years, if I were them I'd be worried many people will see it as job done, no matter how hard they are urged to keep fighting for those senate runoffs.
I think Mysticrose is basically correct. The more the Trump flails and the more the GOP align behind him the bigger the Dem drive for the run-offs.
If this nonsense is still being pushed past the EC vote then it will be like manna from heaven for the Dems.
The Dems are currently 3 points higher than their best election result since Carter in Georgia.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Tony Blair didn’t of course say it on the steps of Downing Street, but ‘whiter than white, purer than pure’ was an unfortunate slogan for a man who not only presided over a grossly corrupt government but remains the only Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation while in office.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
I think is it is, in part, a reaction to Trumps nonsense about declaring himself re-elected.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
Agreed. They're trying to avoid playing into his narrative. If it wasn't for his insanity I think this would in a normal year have been called already and the POTUS given his concession speech.
This isn't a normal year though.
Yes, I'm sure Biden is happy to play this long. Trump discredits himself each day he hangs on, it does the GoP no good and it allows time for passions to cool.
He's not going to be President until next year so there's no need to rush. Gives him plenty of time to make his plans, and get his ducks in line. Win,win for JB.
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
Buttigieg's husband (Chasten Buttigieg) would obviously be First Gentleman, as Bill Clinton would have if Hilary had been elected.
In terms of bachelor Presidents, James Buchanan's niece acted as his First Lady. Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor but (somewhat creepily) married his adopted daughter in office. It was slightly less creepy than that to be fair (although very weird by today's standards) - in those days the rights of women made it very difficult for a widow with children so he took on various legal responsibilities following the death of a friend but wasn't her "Dad" in the modern sense. Big age gap though - they married in the White House when she was 21.
Cleveland's wife (Frances Fulsom) was an interesting figure - very independent and driven in many ways, but a leading light in the anti-female suffrage movement later on. She argued women weren't intelligent enough to get the vote... but her granddaughter (Philippa Foot) went on to be one of the foremost philosophers of her generation, coming up with the famous "trolley problem"!
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Tony Blair didn’t of course say it on the steps of Downing Street, but ‘whiter than white, purer than pure’ was an unfortunate slogan for a man who not only presided over a grossly corrupt government but remains the only Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation while in office.
He didn't promise to usher in a new era of consensus, though, only to consciously make permanent the end of the postwar consensus.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
What, like the miners' strike? It took a while.....
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
I think Margaret Thatcher 'resolved' several conflicts in quite a satisfactory fashion...
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
I think is it is, in part, a reaction to Trumps nonsense about declaring himself re-elected.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
Agreed. They're trying to avoid playing into his narrative. If it wasn't for his insanity I think this would in a normal year have been called already and the POTUS given his concession speech.
This isn't a normal year though.
Yes, I'm sure Biden is happy to play this long. Trump discredits himself each day he hangs on, it does the GoP no good and it allows time for passions to cool.
He's not going to be President until next year so there's no need to rush. Gives him plenty of time to make his plans, and get his ducks in line. Win,win for JB.
One of the talking heads I was watching yesterday compared the transition at the start of GW Bush’s term to that at the end, saying that the rushed start was mentioned by the 9/11 commission as a contributing factor in the lack of preparedness. By contrast the transfer at the end is regarded as a model of ow to do it.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Yes, and I don’t want to think about that question.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Should that scenario come to pass and a very angry Donald Trump prevails, what would your advice be to Democrat lawmakers? Should they stay and face the full force of Trump's ire and vengeance, or should they high-tail it out, pronto, as political asylum seekers?
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
My advice would be first to Republican lawmakers “don’t go there”. If you have evidence of fraud, present it and let the courts decide. Simple as. What I said is, judging from the actions of the GOP, this is a scenario that is possible.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
I think is it is, in part, a reaction to Trumps nonsense about declaring himself re-elected.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
Agreed. They're trying to avoid playing into his narrative. If it wasn't for his insanity I think this would in a normal year have been called already and the POTUS given his concession speech.
This isn't a normal year though.
Yes, I'm sure Biden is happy to play this long. Trump discredits himself each day he hangs on, it does the GoP no good and it allows time for passions to cool.
He's not going to be President until next year so there's no need to rush. Gives him plenty of time to make his plans, and get his ducks in line. Win,win for JB.
There's also a TV network sub-narrative. All the other networks want Fox to be first to call it in order to provoke an hilarious meltdown in the White House and possibly an alt-right civil war.
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
The president will probably be certified before the result is, at this rate.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Tony Blair didn’t of course say it on the steps of Downing Street, but ‘whiter than white, purer than pure’ was an unfortunate slogan for a man who not only presided over a grossly corrupt government but remains the only Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation while in office.
He didn't promise to usher in a new era of consensus, though, only to consciously make permanent the end of the postwar consensus.
He did offer to usher in a new era of integrity and honesty though.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Should that scenario come to pass and a very angry Donald Trump prevails, what would your advice be to Democrat lawmakers? Should they stay and face the full force of Trump's ire and vengeance, or should they high-tail it out, pronto, as political asylum seekers?
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
My advice would be first to Republican lawmakers “don’t go there”. If you have evidence of fraud, present it and let the courts decide. Simple as. What I said is, judging from the actions of the GOP, this is a scenario that is possible.
It’s a proper nuclear option for the Republicans to go down the route of trying to invalidate the election, would be a really silly idea in anything but the immediate short term.
The correct way is indeed to report anything they see as irregular, and let the courts deal with it.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Should that scenario come to pass and a very angry Donald Trump prevails, what would your advice be to Democrat lawmakers? Should they stay and face the full force of Trump's ire and vengeance, or should they high-tail it out, pronto, as political asylum seekers?
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
My advice would be first to Republican lawmakers “don’t go there”. If you have evidence of fraud, present it and let the courts decide. Simple as. What I said is, judging from the actions of the GOP, this is a scenario that is possible.
It’s a proper nuclear option for the Republicans to go down the route of trying to invalidate the election, would be a really silly idea in anything but the immediate short term.
The correct way is indeed to report anything they see as irregular, and let the courts deal with it.
They won’t do that. All the irregularities are in their favour.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
They won't wait for Electoral College to meet if the results are certified as the Betfair rules say faithless electors don't make a difference - when Biden states certify 270+ electors pleged to Biden, that's it.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Interesting title - one wonders if whoever wrote it has Tacitus in mind, given that solitudinis could be translated as 'wilderness' I think (but @BluestBlue will no doubt correct me if needed)
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
They won't wait for Electoral College to meet if the results are certified as the Betfair rules say faithless electors don't make a difference - when Biden states certify 270+ electors pleged to Biden, that's it.
But the difference will be a matter of days.
Yes, they’ll wait for the last state authority to have legally certified the results, rather than the actual EC meeting, you’re right.
Still likely to be December though, maybe someone should run a spread on the date Betfair pays out?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
The Romans make a desert and call it Peace.
She transitioned us from a failing post-industrial economy to a successful services-based one. We now no longer have crippling industrial and labour disputes that disrupt us all, where no-one wins.
We are all better off as a result, both economically and from a health point of view: think of the fact men don't have to go down horrible coal mines every day and die of lung-related issues in their 60s as a result.
The challenge is that a lot of those ex-industrial areas have lost a sense of community and are yet to be fully rejuvenated with new sustainable jobs. Something all parties should be interested in fixing.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
The Romans make a desert and call it Peace.
She transitioned us from a failing post-industrial economy to a successful services-based one. We now no longer have crippling industrial and labour disputes that disrupt us all, where no-one wins.
We are all better off as a result, both economically and from a health point of view: think of the fact men don't have to go down horrible coal mines every day and die of lung-related issues in their 60s as a result.
The challenge is that a lot of those ex-industrial areas have lost a sense of community and are yet to be fully rejuvenated with new sustainable jobs. Something all parties should be interested in fixing.
This is a PB argument that could run and run, but I personally would very much dispute that we are all better off, from multiple perspectives.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains states Trump voting US from the Biden voting Northern and Western US
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
Wasn’t there the anecdote recently about the grandson of a US President from the 1840s just recently dying?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
Odds on PA on Betfair Exchange were 1.06 this morning
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
I have a feeling that Betfair aren’t going to settle anything until the electoral college meets, sometime in December, as that’s when the election result is officially certified.
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
OK Ta
The rules clearly rule out faithless electors for ECV iirc, so my understanding is the final counting of votes should be sufficient.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
The Romans make a desert and call it Peace.
She transitioned us from a failing post-industrial economy to a successful services-based one. We now no longer have crippling industrial and labour disputes that disrupt us all, where no-one wins.
We are all better off as a result, both economically and from a health point of view: think of the fact men don't have to go down horrible coal mines every day and die of lung-related issues in their 60s as a result.
The challenge is that a lot of those ex-industrial areas have lost a sense of community and are yet to be fully rejuvenated with new sustainable jobs. Something all parties should be interested in fixing.
I agree. Whether that brutal transition was well managed, and in a spirit of reconciliation was the question raised.
Brexit was in part driven by Shire Tories who never liked the EEC/EU, but got over the line because of Northern post industrial cities and towns wanting revenge on the Southern financial services economy for leaving them behind.
Revenge served cold, and showing a continuing division.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
Wasn’t there the anecdote recently about the grandson of a US President from the 1840s just recently dying?
Better - one is still alive, or was a few weeks ago, grandson of John Tyler (born 1790).
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
I too knew one of my great-grandmothers. She was not quite that old, but she voted in the first UK election that allowed women the franchise.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
No, they were infamous for how rude they were to each other.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
My eldest grandchild saw, although only has cloudy memories of some, all of her gt. grandparents. I only saw one set of grandparents. To some extent that's a function of more people living longer. My father used to talk of an experience, as a small boy, at the beginning of WWI
When Kerry lost the 2004 election he put on just over 8 million votes compared to Gore in 2000, Bush II increased his vote by nearly 11.6 million votes.
Trump is on +7.2 million votes, so while that compares very well with other defeated incumbents (Bush I, Carter, Hoover all lost at least 5 million votes between elections), it's perhaps not as exceptional as I was making out yesterday.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
I seem to recall a quote commenting on the silliness of the name The Troubles, asking what thousands of people were supposed to have died from - stress?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Should that scenario come to pass and a very angry Donald Trump prevails, what would your advice be to Democrat lawmakers? Should they stay and face the full force of Trump's ire and vengeance, or should they high-tail it out, pronto, as political asylum seekers?
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
My advice would be first to Republican lawmakers “don’t go there”. If you have evidence of fraud, present it and let the courts decide. Simple as. What I said is, judging from the actions of the GOP, this is a scenario that is possible.
It’s a proper nuclear option for the Republicans to go down the route of trying to invalidate the election, would be a really silly idea in anything but the immediate short term.
The correct way is indeed to report anything they see as irregular, and let the courts deal with it.
Which I think they will (for now) and the Democrats are not doing themselves any favours by not fully complying with court orders in PA.
As someone said here, the betting organisations won’t pay out for a while. Interestingly, when I looked last night, Ladbrokes were still not paying out on Michigan.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
Wasn’t there the anecdote recently about the grandson of a US President from the 1840s just recently dying?
Better - one is still alive, or was a few weeks ago, grandson of John Tyler (born 1790).
They know how to make slick but unexceptional incremental changes to their technological devices drive people so mad with lust they will fork out way too much money for it.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
My eldest grandchild saw, although only has cloudy memories of some, all of her gt. grandparents. I only saw one set of grandparents. To some extent that's a function of more people living longer. My father used to talk of an experience, as a small boy, at the beginning of WWI
When Kerry lost the 2004 election he put on just over 8 million votes compared to Gore in 2000, Bush II increased his vote by nearly 11.6 million votes.
Trump is on +7.2 million votes, so while that compares very well with other defeated incumbents (Bush I, Carter, Hoover all lost at least 5 million votes between elections), it's perhaps not as exceptional as I was making out yesterday.
The electorate expands every year. Plus non competitive states like CA and NY have been losing people to more competitive states like NC giving people a reason to vote
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't quite the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically , too.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
Oh, so you don't think NI partt of the UK? Either it is or it is not - you are leaving it in a state of Schroedingerism rather like Mr Johnson has of late.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
One of these networks needs to just stop fucking about and declare PA for Biden. There's no way back for Trump in PA under any circumstances. Call it. Call the fucking race. End it.
When Kerry lost the 2004 election he put on just over 8 million votes compared to Gore in 2000, Bush II increased his vote by nearly 11.6 million votes.
Trump is on +7.2 million votes, so while that compares very well with other defeated incumbents (Bush I, Carter, Hoover all lost at least 5 million votes between elections), it's perhaps not as exceptional as I was making out yesterday.
The electorate expands every year. Plus non competitive states like CA and NY have been losing people to more competitive states like NC giving people a reason to vote
Yes, but candidates do sometimes lose votes compared to themselves in previous elections, or to the pueblos candidate for their party, so looking at changes in the absolute numbers of votes cast is not meaningless.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
No, they were infamous for how rude they were to each other.
Did I read somewhere that there are plans to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Irish Free State and the separation of Northern Ireland?
Surely that would be 'lighting the blue touch paper'?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
They know how to make slick but unexceptional incremental changes to their technological devices drive people so mad with lust they will fork out way too much money for it.
I think we have just seen a post that will cause an alliance between @TSE and @CorrectHorseBattery
One of these networks needs to just stop fucking about and declare PA for Biden. There's no way back for Trump in PA under any circumstances. Call it. Call the fucking race. End it.
They said AP were waiting for a 35k lead yesterday or 0.5%
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
Oh, so you don't think NI partt of the UK? Either it is or it is not - you are leaving it in a state of Schroedingerism rather like Mr Johnson has of late.
To be fair to HUYFD the word “wider” is pretty important to the meaning of the statement.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
No, they were infamous for how rude they were to each other.
Did I read somewhere that there are plans to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Irish Free State and the separation of Northern Ireland?
Surely that would be 'lighting the blue touch paper'?
Green, surely?
Given that it led directly to Civil War in Ireland itself, a more logical thing would be to downplay it and commemorate instead the declaration of a Republic in 2049. But that may seem a long way off.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
No, they were infamous for how rude they were to each other.
Did I read somewhere that there are plans to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Irish Free State and the separation of Northern Ireland?
Surely that would be 'lighting the blue touch paper'?
What is remotely remarkable about a country marking the centenary of its establishment?
They celebrated the centenary of the Easter Rising with very little controversy. They've recently marked the centenary of the deaths of hunger strikers during the War of Independence too. You would think those would be more contentious. But no bother.
They know how to make slick but unexceptional incremental changes to their technological devices drive people so mad with lust they will fork out way too much money for it.
That reminds me: the new iPhone is out now isn’t it? I ought to see if I can upgrade yet on my contract.
When Kerry lost the 2004 election he put on just over 8 million votes compared to Gore in 2000, Bush II increased his vote by nearly 11.6 million votes.
Trump is on +7.2 million votes, so while that compares very well with other defeated incumbents (Bush I, Carter, Hoover all lost at least 5 million votes between elections), it's perhaps not as exceptional as I was making out yesterday.
The electorate expands every year. Plus non competitive states like CA and NY have been losing people to more competitive states like NC giving people a reason to vote
Yes, but candidates do sometimes lose votes compared to themselves in previous elections, or to the pueblos candidate for their party, so looking at changes in the absolute numbers of votes cast is not meaningless.
Totally true, I was just flagging there are other factors than merely the candidate has persuaded more people to vote for them
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
Wasn’t there the anecdote recently about the grandson of a US President from the 1840s just recently dying?
President Tyler's grandson (and Tyler was born in 1799). Indeed, I believe the one who died still leaves one remaining.
Both Tyler and his son were exceptionally old when they had kids, of course, for the maths to work on that.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
No, they were infamous for how rude they were to each other.
Did I read somewhere that there are plans to celebrate the centenary of the establishment of the Irish Free State and the separation of Northern Ireland?
Surely that would be 'lighting the blue touch paper'?
What is remotely remarkable about a country marking the centenary of its establishment?
They celebrated the centenary of the Easter Rising with very little controversy. They've recently marked the centenary of the deaths of hunger strikers during the War of Independence too. You would think those would be more contentious. But no bother.
Quite so. They've moved on, unlike some other states. What impressed me was the Nationalk Museum displays in the former Collins Barracks. They include the service of many Irish people in the UK armed forces as well as the Easter Rising, and so on.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
Of those killed in the Troubles only 125 were in England but 1541 were killed in Belfast, 477 in Armagh and 340 in Tyrone and 243 in Down and 227 in Derry and 209 in Antrim.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
The missing piece of the puzzle is this -
In some industries (car making etc), labour laws combined with no-strike deals have moved the workers there to a certain level in their employment. In terms of pay and a number of other areas, conditions have moved closer to those of traditional middle class white collar jobs. Shiny factories, lots of automation, good H&S, paid well....
In other industries, a race to the bottom (minimum wage jobs), fueled by outsourcing and excess labour supply has continued the traditions of the old "piece work" jobs.
Most reading here won't have encountered a job where the pay packet is often deliberately short, leave denied or lied about, no H&S etc.
Comments
Couldnt resist and also at 1.05
No idea how long my money will be tied up
Trump over 70m /Biden over 75m surpassed/almost reached
Any idea when Betfair settles as one has already happened the other will today?
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
The logical conclusion of "count every vote" is wait until the count is complete. So if you want to be an anti-Trump, simply wait for the deadlines and the completion of the counts.
There is no hurry. Trump will be President until Inauguration Day - let him rant and rave.
That will help Donald Trump Jnr and Pence even if Trump does not run again
If your latest wheeze succeeds the US is a failed democracy.
DEM 5K up on AP
GOP 2K up on AP
This isn't a normal year though.
If this nonsense is still being pushed past the EC vote then it will be like manna from heaven for the Dems.
The Dems are currently 3 points higher than their best election result since Carter in Georgia.
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
He's not going to be President until next year so there's no need to rush. Gives him plenty of time to make his plans, and get his ducks in line. Win,win for JB.
In terms of bachelor Presidents, James Buchanan's niece acted as his First Lady. Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor but (somewhat creepily) married his adopted daughter in office. It was slightly less creepy than that to be fair (although very weird by today's standards) - in those days the rights of women made it very difficult for a widow with children so he took on various legal responsibilities following the death of a friend but wasn't her "Dad" in the modern sense. Big age gap though - they married in the White House when she was 21.
Cleveland's wife (Frances Fulsom) was an interesting figure - very independent and driven in many ways, but a leading light in the anti-female suffrage movement later on. She argued women weren't intelligent enough to get the vote... but her granddaughter (Philippa Foot) went on to be one of the foremost philosophers of her generation, coming up with the famous "trolley problem"!
2,456,845
2,452,825
CNN Has
2,461,455
2454,207
The 2000 election didn’t finish until the court ruling in Bush v Gore on 12th December.
Looks like AP haven't updated as recently as CNN.
Which is ironic however you cut it.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
The correct way is indeed to report anything they see as irregular, and let the courts deal with it.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
But the difference will be a matter of days.
Interesting title - one wonders if whoever wrote it has Tacitus in mind, given that solitudinis could be translated as 'wilderness' I think (but @BluestBlue will no doubt correct me if needed)
Still likely to be December though, maybe someone should run a spread on the date Betfair pays out?
https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/1324435797374808066
We are all better off as a result, both economically and from a health point of view: think of the fact men don't have to go down horrible coal mines every day and die of lung-related issues in their 60s as a result.
The challenge is that a lot of those ex-industrial areas have lost a sense of community and are yet to be fully rejuvenated with new sustainable jobs. Something all parties should be interested in fixing.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
Brexit was in part driven by Shire Tories who never liked the EEC/EU, but got over the line because of Northern post industrial cities and towns wanting revenge on the Southern financial services economy for leaving them behind.
Revenge served cold, and showing a continuing division.
To some extent that's a function of more people living longer.
My father used to talk of an experience, as a small boy, at the beginning of WWI
(Autocorrect tried to make ‘puts’ into ‘putsch’ for some reason. Does Apple know something we don’t?)
Trump is on +7.2 million votes, so while that compares very well with other defeated incumbents (Bush I, Carter, Hoover all lost at least 5 million votes between elections), it's perhaps not as exceptional as I was making out yesterday.
As someone said here, the betting organisations won’t pay out for a while. Interestingly, when I looked last night, Ladbrokes were still not paying out on Michigan.
Here is an article.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive
Surely that would be 'lighting the blue touch paper'?
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
I think we are about at the latter
Given that it led directly to Civil War in Ireland itself, a more logical thing would be to downplay it and commemorate instead the declaration of a Republic in 2049. But that may seem a long way off.
They celebrated the centenary of the Easter Rising with very little controversy. They've recently marked the centenary of the deaths of hunger strikers during the War of Independence too. You would think those would be more contentious. But no bother.
Both Tyler and his son were exceptionally old when they had kids, of course, for the maths to work on that.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
In some industries (car making etc), labour laws combined with no-strike deals have moved the workers there to a certain level in their employment. In terms of pay and a number of other areas, conditions have moved closer to those of traditional middle class white collar jobs. Shiny factories, lots of automation, good H&S, paid well....
In other industries, a race to the bottom (minimum wage jobs), fueled by outsourcing and excess labour supply has continued the traditions of the old "piece work" jobs.
Most reading here won't have encountered a job where the pay packet is often deliberately short, leave denied or lied about, no H&S etc.