Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

If there had been an equal number of men and women voting then Trump would have won a second term –

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited November 2020 in General
imageIf there had been an equal number of men and women voting then Trump would have won a second term – politicalbetting.com

Lots of analysis at the moment about the US election following the victory of Joe Biden and defeat of Donald Trump.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”
  • First like Trump
  • 53% women? That chart has to be fake news.

    Everyone knows that all splits now have to be 52:48.
  • Maybe Trump's best hope now is to argue the 19th Amendment is invalid, so "all legal votes" means...
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”

    Will that be Fox News the channel or Mrs Fox’s news-stand on a railway station platform in some suburb of Philly?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,697
    rpjs said:

    The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”

    Will that be Fox News the channel or Mrs Fox’s news-stand on a railway station platform in some suburb of Philly?
    Liam Fox’s YouTube channel.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited November 2020
    Trump closing the gap in AZ - but possibly not fast enough:


    https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited November 2020

    Trump closing the gap in AZ - but possibly not fast enough:


    https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html#

    Doesn't seem like there's anything Trumpy left after that:

    https://twitter.com/JohnRSamuelsen/status/1325585619175809025?s=19
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,152
    edited November 2020
    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats for lying about him, but not laying into US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him (e.g. for economic reasons), won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,096
    edited November 2020

    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.

    To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.

    Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.

    Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.

    Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    edited November 2020

    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.

    To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.

    Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.

    Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.

    Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
    Would be ironic if it cost the GOP the Senate.
    As for men...
    Can't be arsed to register, live long enough, learn to iron or to vote.
    Typical.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128

    Random Election Facts, Volume 37:

    The Democrats have never won a Presidential election this millennium without Joe Biden on the ticket...

    Just like the Republicans did not win a Presidential election from 1980 to 2016 without a Bush on the ticket
  • HYUFD said:
    For context, he is a televangelist, that is worth $100 millions. And regularly talks absolute s##t e.g. he could cure people with COVID.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    Trump still won 55% of white women, it was the 91% of black women and 70% of Latino women Biden won that won the female vote for him

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020&region=TOP_BANNER&context=election_recirc
  • HYUFD said:
    For context, he is a televangelist, that is worth $100 millions. And regularly talks absolute s##t e.g. he could cure people with COVID.
    The Lord helps them what help themselves, or so I understand.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    edited November 2020
    HYUFD said:
    That's your real culture war right there. It depresses and bewilders me that some otherwise reasonable right of centre people can't see it.
    And the automatic weapons natch.
    We really are nowt like America. Hopefully long may we not be so.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    HYUFD said:

    Trump still won 55% of white women, it was the 91% of black women and 70% of Latino women Biden won that won the female vote for him

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020&region=TOP_BANNER&context=election_recirc

    Good spot..... the appeal of Trump to white voters speaks volumes about his message - it is a shrinking demographic and the Republicans need to reconsider how they broaden their base (bit like the UK Conservatives moving into Mansfield, Bishop Auckland etc)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,128
    edited November 2020

    HYUFD said:

    Trump still won 55% of white women, it was the 91% of black women and 70% of Latino women Biden won that won the female vote for him

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020&region=TOP_BANNER&context=election_recirc

    Good spot..... the appeal of Trump to white voters speaks volumes about his message - it is a shrinking demographic and the Republicans need to reconsider how they broaden their base (bit like the UK Conservatives moving into Mansfield, Bishop Auckland etc)
    Indeed, it may be the half Hispanic George P Bush is a good long term bet on that basis but for the moment the GOP will continue with its protectionist, slash immigration message, in the UK it is less of an issue as there are fewer ethnic minority voters though Sunak can also broaden the Tory appeal on that basis.

    Otherwise ethnic minority immigrants, particularly Asian, have a strong work ethic and support for lower taxes and social conservatism that makes them natural conservatives and there is no reason the right cannot win them, indeed Trump may have lost minority voters but did make inroads eg with Cuban Americans in Florida
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590
    RobD said:
    Who is this person?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,244
    edited November 2020

    HYUFD said:

    Trump still won 55% of white women, it was the 91% of black women and 70% of Latino women Biden won that won the female vote for him

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-2020&region=TOP_BANNER&context=election_recirc

    Good spot..... the appeal of Trump to white voters speaks volumes about his message - it is a shrinking demographic and the Republicans need to reconsider how they broaden their base (bit like the UK Conservatives moving into Mansfield, Bishop Auckland etc)
    I think that is only the third time since 1950 that more white women have voted Democrat than Republican."

    If the wokeists don't become wakeists we'll be back to "white women vote according to their race not their gender" before long, as they are that far out of line.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/white-women-gop/576586/
    .
  • Has Trumpster been on Fox yet?
  • The General Services Administration, a government agency that supports federal agencies, still hasn't formally recognised Joe Biden as president-elect.

    Until they do this, Biden's team are unable to get the transition process going within government agencies, and money can't be freed up to prepare for the transfer of power.
  • Has Trumpster been on Fox yet?

    Apparently a no-show...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,209

    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.

    To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.

    Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.

    Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.

    Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
    Disagree.

    So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.

    That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.

    The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    rcs1000 said:

    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.

    To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.

    Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.

    Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.

    Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
    Disagree.

    So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.

    That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.

    The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.
    Am I right in thinking that in US schools etc that they incessantly pledge allegiance to the flag and constitution ( I am not an expert) and so Trump now challenging the election puts a lot of Republican voters in a quandry.....they know he is a bit of tw#t, but asking them to challenge their fundamental belief in upholding the constitution is IMO a step too far for many in the Republican party and their voters..... surely it is only a matter of time when the moderate (majority?) voice among Republicans speak out - he is playing fast and loose with what are precious notions to US citizens...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590
    edited November 2020
    Another interesting question IMO is if the exit poll was right and white men were the only group where Trump's share of the vote declined, would he have won the election if that share had held steady from 2016? Given how close the result is, the answer might be yes, which would be ironic given that white men are usually blamed for Trump being in the White House.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    For me the interesting question is whether there was, and to what extent was there, churn between the parties.
    - How many 2016 Republicans actually deserted Trump in 2020 and if it was a thing, who were they and where?
    - Or was voting pattern fairly static between 2016 and 2020, and the differences in outcome down mainly to new voters?

    Also, registration was up more than the vote increased, by a fairly big margin. Does this mean that registration drives are not that effective in bringing in new voters, or did the first time registered voters vote in similar percentages as established registered voters?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468

    Random Election Facts, Volume 37:

    The Democrats have never won a Presidential election this millennium without Joe Biden on the ticket...


    Clearly means that once Joe completes his second term or dies, the Democrats are doomed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    First thing for Joe to announce - a full audit of ... ALL ... the results and ballots.
  • TimT said:

    For me the interesting question is whether there was, and to what extent was there, churn between the parties.
    - How many 2016 Republicans actually deserted Trump in 2020 and if it was a thing, who were they and where?
    - Or was voting pattern fairly static between 2016 and 2020, and the differences in outcome down mainly to new voters?

    Also, registration was up more than the vote increased, by a fairly big margin. Does this mean that registration drives are not that effective in bringing in new voters, or did the first time registered voters vote in similar percentages as established registered voters?

    Fox described registration drives as an example of election fraud! They must be persuasive if people are signing up but then not voting.

    The difference in numbers of men and women in the US ought to mean that the voting numbers aren’t far off 51:49 and when you allow for the much higher numbers of females among the elderly and more males among the 18-24s, the difference amongst those voting is roughly what you would expect it to be.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590
    Thread on the disorganised state of the Florida Democrats.

    https://twitter.com/rgcooke/status/1325598436888961024
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2020
    BETTING POST

    You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.

    Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!

    The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.

    - Presidential Election 2020
    When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
    For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
    where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
    November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
  • rpjs said:

    The president will make his first media appearance since the Joe Biden was widely called as the winner of the presidential election. Donald Trump tweeted that he will appear on rightwing host Mark Levin’s show on Fox News at 8pm ET tonight, where he says he will discuss “the Mail-In Ballot Hoax!”

    Will that be Fox News the channel or Mrs Fox’s news-stand on a railway station platform in some suburb of Philly?
    Liam Fox’s YouTube channel.
    That's what the staffer thought, but it is in fact Lozza Fox's YouTube channel. Claire Fox isn't answering her phone currently.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    'Biden Bounce' means Japanese shares have just hit a 30-year high.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54868729
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    Not sure about the header headline. It assumes that the non voting men would vote the same way as the ones who voted. Possibly true, but we have no way of knowing. Indeed if non voters were disproportionately black then they might well tilt things even more to Biden/Harris.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,165
    edited November 2020
    An excellent article. It captures the way in which a nihilistic sense of grievance, also promoted and monetised by Trump in a media spectacle, is essential to understanding the Trump appeal. It doesn't quite capture the other half, in terms of the more standard post-Reaganite policies thrown along into the mix as well, but they're there to stay in the wider Republican party regardless.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Scott_xP said:
    Appropriate as the country turns over a new leaf.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    Random Election Facts, Volume 37:

    The Democrats have never won a Presidential election this millennium without Joe Biden on the ticket...

    If you are playing odd "Ticket facts"
    The republicans have only won the presidency without a Bush on the ticket once since 1973
    The republicans have only won the presidency without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket once since 1929.
    The Exception in both cases was in 2016.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Appropriate as the country turns over a new leaf.
    They are just astroturfing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,713
    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590
    A 6% return is better than most bank accounts and investments at the moment. That's the return you get on backing Biden with Betfair Exchange.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Andy_JS said:

    A 6% return is better than most bank accounts and investments at the moment. That's the return you get on backing Biden with Betfair Exchange.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    Crazy isn't it?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,805
    edited November 2020
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: two specials up on Ladbrokes.

    Perez is 1.91 to drive for Red Bull next year. I don't know if that's value or not.

    Verstappen is 34 to win 100 or more races by 2030.

    'by' sounds like it means before the start of the 2030 season. So that gives him nine seasons. In that time, he has to average 10-11 wins a year. Now, that's not impossible (Hamilton's probably been doing that of late) but he requires a clear car advantage. I'm not inclined to lock money up for a decade on that sort of basis. Inflation alone will eat away at the value over that timescale.

    Edited extra bit: just checked, and he has 9 wins already. So it's a hair over 10 a season, assuming he doesn't win in one of the last few races this year.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
  • Foxy said:

    Not sure about the header headline. It assumes that the non voting men would vote the same way as the ones who voted. Possibly true, but we have no way of knowing. Indeed if non voters were disproportionately black then they might well tilt things even more to Biden/Harris.

    They’ll be predominantly young. Same applies.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,165
    edited November 2020
    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which, on economic issues, the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the Right pragmatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,222

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which, on economic issues, the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the Right pragmatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    Who is next GOP candidate is going to be key.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    I find all these 'if..' questions about election results tedious and usually driven by agendas which prefer not to engage with what happened. In short
    1. Biden won and Trump lost.
    2. América remains quite divided but the new President is making all the right noises so far.
    3. Good luck to him.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    Good move. Waiting a few days for the dust to settle might not have been a bad idea. I've become a fan though so it would be nice to see more of her
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858
    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which, on economic issues, the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the Right pragmatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    Who is next GOP candidate is going to be key.
    One of the many deficiencies of the US system is that there won't be a clear leader of the GOP for the next 3 years. Mitch McConnell in the Senate will play an important role but the lack of a clearly defined LOTO can make it difficult to create a cohesive platform and impose some party discipline.

    Trump, for all his many faults, has had to create his own coalition as have every leader before him in both parties. As AOC points out the disappearance of Obama's phenomenal electoral machine outwith the party was probably key to Clinton losing. Trump reached parts of the populace that many more moderate republicans will struggle to reach in the same way, the blue collar, non graduate whites who remind me strongly of the sort of voters who flipped the red wall constituencies here. Someone more establishment may have to look elsewhere for their winning coalition, not the same places as Trump found them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
  • Just checking, but for those of us who slept last night did Trump actually put in his promised appearance or not?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
    One of the problems for AOC (and indeed for Momentum here) is that they are brilliant at GOTV in places that the Dems are going to win anyway but, if anything, incentivise opposition in State wide races like for the Senate. The Senate results are a serious disappointment for the Dems. No doubt a lot of money and effort are about to be expended in Georgia but I suspect in vain.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
    One of the problems for AOC (and indeed for Momentum here) is that they are brilliant at GOTV in places that the Dems are going to win anyway but, if anything, incentivise opposition in State wide races like for the Senate. The Senate results are a serious disappointment for the Dems. No doubt a lot of money and effort are about to be expended in Georgia but I suspect in vain.
    That may depend on just how Trump ends up leaving: if he is seen as being an incredible, poor loser then that may depress the Republican vote enough I would have thought.
    I assume the key will be those who voted Biden for president but R for the senate.
  • Scott_xP said:
    This had to be a piece of performance art, doesn't it? The government needs some of the IM bill in place for January, but there's no way this particular bill becomes law in time.

    But it's a curious bluff that emphasises one's weakness.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590

    Andy_JS said:

    A 6% return is better than most bank accounts and investments at the moment. That's the return you get on backing Biden with Betfair Exchange.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    Crazy isn't it?
    Certainly is.
  • Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,858

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
    One of the problems for AOC (and indeed for Momentum here) is that they are brilliant at GOTV in places that the Dems are going to win anyway but, if anything, incentivise opposition in State wide races like for the Senate. The Senate results are a serious disappointment for the Dems. No doubt a lot of money and effort are about to be expended in Georgia but I suspect in vain.
    That may depend on just how Trump ends up leaving: if he is seen as being an incredible, poor loser then that may depress the Republican vote enough I would have thought.
    I assume the key will be those who voted Biden for president but R for the senate.
    From what we saw Ossoff was a very strong candidate and Perdue had more baggage than a Kardashian but Perdue was still ahead. I will be very surprised if Ossoff can do better in the runoff.
  • Lord Falconer on Sky.

    Is he going to resign?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,590
    Mapreader said:
    One mystery is why the MRP study didn't do particularly well in the US when it was so accurate at the last two UK elections.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    Scott_xP said:
    Good morning everyone. On topic, didn't I read last weekend that the Navajo Nation was backing Trump?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    Roger said:

    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
    Are you giving Georgia to Trump?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,398

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
    One of the problems for AOC (and indeed for Momentum here) is that they are brilliant at GOTV in places that the Dems are going to win anyway but, if anything, incentivise opposition in State wide races like for the Senate. The Senate results are a serious disappointment for the Dems. No doubt a lot of money and effort are about to be expended in Georgia but I suspect in vain.
    That may depend on just how Trump ends up leaving: if he is seen as being an incredible, poor loser then that may depress the Republican vote enough I would have thought.
    I assume the key will be those who voted Biden for president but R for the senate.
    Trump doesn't want to be a 'Loser', so he'll end up being known as a 'Bad Loser'.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited November 2020

    Roger said:

    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
    Are you giving Georgia to Trump?
    Looking at the Guardian website it looks most likely.
  • Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.

    The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Roger said:

    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
    What's happened to the other 3 votes???

    Biden is pretty much nailed on to get 306 i would have thought
  • Roger said:

    Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?

    He should be 43 years into his 50 year jail term. A 44 year old who admitted putting his dick in a 13 year old girl, and you don't see the issue.
  • eek said:

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
    If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.

    If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
    Are you giving Georgia to Trump?
    Looking at the Guardian website it looks most likely.
    On what basis? Are you looking at the wrong race?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.

    The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
    It isn't to me about breaking the law, it's about keeping your word. A view which I think will be widely shared by those predisposed to think of the Prime Minister as a shapeshifting creep.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.

    The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
    If that's what happened in Germany, case as stated, I take your point.
    However the EU didn't throw us out, or even ask us to leave.It wanted, and AFAIK, wants us to stay. It was our idea to leave. So surely it's up to us to make things legal.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    DavidL said:

    Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.

    Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,364
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @Roger

    AOC on the case, and quite a point. It was grass roots organisers that got Biden over the line.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ends-truce-by-warning-incompetent-democratic-party

    The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in becoming a more coherent force, otherwise its ascendancy is just going to be temporary. Partly as in Britain, the Right of the party is still unwilling to accept the greater mobilsing power of the left, and the way in which the Clinton era of popular appeal is not going to return, and the Left is still not quite willing enough to engage with the right pragamatically, or to apply more nuances and self-examination to its cultural approach.
    What I think she is making very clear is that a sleepy Joe Presidency where very little gets done but things are less divisive than under Trump is not going to cut it. She wants Obamacare extended at a minimum. Going to be difficult to deliver without the Senate. She will also be pushing for the next relief program from Covid to be much more focused on poor people and a lot less on corporations.
    It is going to be nearly impossible to deliver anything without the Senate. McConnell is a (self stated) total road block to any Democrat policy.
    One of the problems for AOC (and indeed for Momentum here) is that they are brilliant at GOTV in places that the Dems are going to win anyway but, if anything, incentivise opposition in State wide races like for the Senate. The Senate results are a serious disappointment for the Dems. No doubt a lot of money and effort are about to be expended in Georgia but I suspect in vain.
    Georgia senate races are in the coin flip territory. It depends whether the Trump supporters are fired up and angry, depressed and stay home, or what. On the Democrat side - can they keep the momentum?

    Unless the Senate gets to 50-50 + VP, I don't see how Biden can do very much.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Roger said:

    Mapreader said:
    290/245 looks most likely. So HYUFD wasn't far out. Even Trafalgar with his abacus -and not much more- didn't fare too badly
    290 most likely? Er ...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited November 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.

    The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
    It isn't to me about breaking the law, it's about keeping your word. A view which I think will be widely shared by those predisposed to think of the Prime Minister as a shapeshifting creep.
    It's also about cherry picking. No doubt if some sort of deal happens it will subsequently be found to contain something (let's be generous and say it's in the small print rather than FRONT AND CENTRE IN BIG BOLD WRITING) which on reflection the UK Government decides it doesn't like.

    What the IMB sets as a precedent is that the Government will claim to be able to legislate away those provisions, and yet merrily contain to enjoy the benefits of the deal as a whole.

    The Govt's position seems to be that international treaties involve compromise - we give a little, you give a little - and once it's finished and signed we'll take a bit back thank you very much.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Andy_JS said:

    Mapreader said:
    One mystery is why the MRP study didn't do particularly well in the US when it was so accurate at the last two UK elections.
    It wasn't that good at the last UK election.

    The MRP has now had more misses than hits. (although what a hit)
  • Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    And with both parents born in the British Empire (Jamaica and India)......
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited November 2020

    BETTING POST

    You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.

    Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!

    The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.

    - Presidential Election 2020
    When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
    For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
    where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
    November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8

    I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.

    Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
  • Scott_xP said:
    No it is entirely logical.

    If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.

    If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
    Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.
    All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.

    The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
    If that's what happened in Germany, case as stated, I take your point.
    However the EU didn't throw us out, or even ask us to leave.It wanted, and AFAIK, wants us to stay. It was our idea to leave. So surely it's up to us to make things legal.
    Yes we chose to leave but that doesn't mean that we're obliged to ensure nothing changes. The entire point of us leaving was to ensure things did change.

    Under the EU's own rules our obligations fall away two years after invoking Article 50. That was well over a year ago, we've extended our obligations repeatedly but they expire 31/12/20 now.

    Now if the 'international order' wants an agreement it is for the EU and UK to agree a deal. If they do so the rest of the concerns about NI and the IMB vanish. But that entails both parties reaching sensible compromises. If the EU aren't prepared to compromise (as they pretended was the case a few weeks ago prior to Boris walking away then the EU rowing back on that) then there can't be a deal but let us hope that's not the case.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    rcs1000 said:

    I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.

    My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.

    And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.

    To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.

    Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.

    Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.

    Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
    Disagree.

    So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.

    That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.

    The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.
    Am I right in thinking that in US schools etc that they incessantly pledge allegiance to the flag and constitution ( I am not an expert) and so Trump now challenging the election puts a lot of Republican voters in a quandry.....they know he is a bit of tw#t, but asking them to challenge their fundamental belief in upholding the constitution is IMO a step too far for many in the Republican party and their voters..... surely it is only a matter of time when the moderate (majority?) voice among Republicans speak out - he is playing fast and loose with what are precious notions to US citizens...
    My wife and daughter do it most mornings (cos they don’t at her school)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,001
    Who is the more divorced from reality?

    Don or Phil?
  • Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.

    Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.
    Aren't many of the 6 million in California?

    Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
This discussion has been closed.