I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
It matters not how he does it. If he wins the EC on Dec 14 Trump will remain in office, neither Secret service or Military will remove him, nor will Dems urge their supporters to take up arms, any sort of violence plays straight into Trumps hands. If Trump achieves Scenario 1 or 2, the battle ground will be courts and ballot boxes in the years to come.
We have had 4 years of Trump, some more of it isn’t the end of the world when compared to actual violence. We agree so far?
Completely disagree.
If Biden is seen to have won, and the Electoral College decides otherwise then there will be civil war in the US.
I don't know about civil war, but the people will be entitled to use the minimum action necessary to prevent the end of democracy. A general strike, a blockade of the White House, a refusal to pay taxes could be starters.
I don't think it'll be necessary. Trump is setting himself up to be The Opposition. He'll be good at it, and he's entitled to try that and stand next time or have an anointed acolyte.. Override this election? Nah.
Thank you, I think we agree, if Republicans gerrymander the college and SC back them it’s a crisis, but the army or secret service won’t then evict him, nor the democrats result to anything other than you described, mass rally’s, civil disobedience, the courts. I don’t know about blockades though, that, and any blockade busting violence plays into Trumps hands.
The bit I disagree with though, you paint such a rosy future for Trump outside the whitehouse. Truth is, it’s stay in control or lose control and end up to his eyebrows in trouble isn’t it?
Has the Supreme Court - at any point - done anything that would lead you to believe they'd back Trump on this?
No, but there may be subtler ways to get there that shift the blame around.
Say Trump (not saying he's this competent but bear with me) staged a national security event that prevented the Electoral College from meeting or prevented some of the electors from getting there. Then the thing should go to the House, but the Dems realize they'll pick Trump so they refuse to meet, in the hope of seating Pelosi. Then SCOTUS conservatives make a ruling to throw the thing back to House congressional delegations, and they pick Trump.
If you can create enough chaos and disruption, while having your thumb on most of the scales, you may be able to exploit a succession of small biases, without forcing any one party to commit to a big one.
As SeaShanty pointed out, the EC does not meet in one place, but in 51:
"Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist; and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11)."
"January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results (3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which “shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.”
"Joint Session Challenges to Electoral Vote Returns While the tellers announce the results, Members may object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced. Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded."
Re: question of "faithless electors" note that recent SCOTUS rulings give teeth to state laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket to which they are pledged when their party presidential & vp slate won the statewide popular vote. For example, in WA state law says that an elector who attempts to vote for candidate(s) other than pledged is automatically removed and replaced by an elector who will vote for the statewide winner.
Re: legislatures doing post-EDay end-runs to replace elected electors, note that this would require solid party line votes to accomplish in various state legislatures, plus plethora of legal hoops & hurdles. Do NOT think this is a good bet - heated rhetoric is one thing, rash over-reaction is quite another.
Thank you 🙂. This is very reassuring.
I have enjoyed all your posts this year shanty.
What do you make from the fact it’s not just hot air from White House? There is genuine pressure out there on GOP leadership because honouring the vote effectively means siding with Biden and dropping Trump in it? If something stupid happens it’s result of that pressure being put on?
Honouring the vote does not mean siding with anyone. Just the constitution and the institutions of democracy.
I suspect Boris has become emboldened by the Biden win: Trump is a has-been and raving; Brexit is teetering on the edge of calamity and its proponents are shrunken men. Boris knows that hard-Right populism has had its day, so is now leaping on the centrist-liberal bandwagon - hence his enthusiasm for climate policy. Dom and the rest of the Brexit mob are now phantoms from a forsaken past and can easily be dispensed with.
If that is what is happening then his, call it flexibility, will be a boon at this moment at least, though it was just days ago people were implying how distraught he would be by Trump going as if he was a committed hard right populist. I'm getting whiplash.
Boris has always been a liberal. Its why I support him wholeheartedly.
The idea he is a Trumpian populist has always been nonsense.
Johnson is a performative politician, a clown rather than a serious thinker. He has some populist tendencies, more visible in his "journalism" than his politics, though at the dispatch box he's been toying with more populist themes to combat Starmer, with faint echoes of some of his colleagues more serious attacks on the legal system. For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
On the subject of Pfizer's vaccine, it's not injected at -70 degrees (obviously), but is thawed first. After thawing the vaccine is good to use for five days.
'Philip Ashton, the CEO and co-founder of AI logistics company 7bridges, said: "Moving and storing dry ice shipments is much more complex, and requires more expertise and infrastructure, than the two to eight degrees Celsius cold chain.
"Far fewer sites that may be able to administer a vaccine will currently have storage facilities for dry ice or easy access to supplies of dry ice if they have to store the vaccine for any length of time. There are ways around this, such as just-in-time fulfilment of the vaccine, but this creates different challenges, principally that any disruptions to transport schedules can leave distribution sites without vaccine stock.
"Because of the additional complexity associated with the dry ice dependent vaccines, all other things being equal, a vaccine that can be kept at two to eight degrees Celsius will be much simpler to distribute and store and therefore administer to a population." '
Sounds like something which is possible at a pinch, but you definitely wouldn't bother with if there is an alternative. Which is fine, cos we are covered either way.
All the varicella based vaccines need a minimum temperature of about -20, and are typically transported using dry ice at -50. Now, these may be a US based thing, rather than a UK one, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems here.
David Frost has been a disaster. His abrasive rhetoric has rubbed Barnier and friends up the wrong way and achieved nothing.
Hello, good evening and goodbye!
His abrasive rhetoric is exactly what the country needed after the weakness of May and is why Barnier has already moved far further since Frost took over than he ever did before then - and likely more compromises still to come.
Getting rid of him would be madness.
But I can see why Remain headbangers like yourself would be disappointed by such a successful Brexit negotiator. Frost doing a good job isn't something you are enjoying, that doesn't mean he's doing a bad job.
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
No, I was a Remainer, I respected the Brexit vote but always wanted a Deal with the EU and I have never been a fan of Cummings
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
HYUFD is on the side of whoever is, or is about to lead the Tory party.
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
I believe you are right. Unfortunately, the diehards are to Boris' right. And uniting the Right was his electoral success.
Well if they wish to go back to Farage, safely back from the US after giving the kiss of death to Trump's defeated campaign, then so be it
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
HYUFD is on the side of whoever is, or is about to lead the Tory party.
You mean it’s the same person also using the account Big G? 😟
Tony Schwarz who ghost-wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump was interviewed by Evan Davis on R4 earlier this evening. He basically answered your question for you.
There is no plan, just a horror of losing and determination to deny it as long as possible.
Appreciated. Trump and his inner cabal are morons. However, as he IS the president and wants to stay President. And the entire GOP leadership aren't morons. So there will be a plan even if it isn't his.
As others elude to above, the Electoral College has to be the target. Doesn't matter what people think they voted for, they're voting for Electors. Who don't even have to represent their views.
By what possible mechanism do Republicans "target" the Electoral College? Where Trump wins a state, the state GOP provides the slate of electors. Where Biden wins a state, the state Democratic Party provides the slate of electors. Several states (although not all) prevent completely or heavily sanction faithless electors. I'm sorry - people saying there's a trick involving the Electoral College simply don't understand how it works.
There isn't a plan here, from Trump or anyone else. Trump has some doomed cases not involving sufficient numbers of voters to cast into doubt any, let alone several, of the states Biden won. He will try and fail to overturn or annul results, but it's all utterly hopeless. Then the Electoral College will announce Biden as President on 14 December, and he'll be inaugurated on 20 January. Trump will never accept it was fair, protecting his ego at the cost of badly damaging democracy in America. Senate Republicans know what the reality is but most of them can't say it as they don't want Trump to set his army of fanatical, drooling morons on them next time they face a primary election.
For some reason, people (both for and strongly against Trump) seem to believe that people who can't book a room for a press conference at the Four Seasons hotel are currently working on the finer points of a plan so brilliant that it will blow our minds. They really, really aren't.
I didn't say it was a *viable* plan. There can be no viable plan. But in the minds of the morons surrounding the Donald its a *brilliant* plan. Epic even. How they win back the TRUE victory or whatever.
It seems to me that there are a number of people surrounding Trump (and including himself) who really know virtually nothing about how the US institutions actually work. When Trump sees stuff said on Fox News or reads stuff on twitter from people who claim authority i think he actually believes it. So he's picking up a little bit of stuff about how states can overrule the voters in selecting electors, and he believes that SCOTUS are totally corruptible and in his pocket. He may well believe all these made stories about electoral fraud that he's been reading. And in his own mind, and those of the likes of his sons, he's thinking he's got a viable route to staying in power. Totally legally as well!
This is why the GOP silence is so disturbing. He needs to be disabused of these fantasies, and sat down and told the truth about how the US works. And if he refuses to accept it then, they have to get Pence to kick him out.
...or just let the electoral processes flow naturally without illegal interference and he'll be out anyway by 20th January.
From the Guardian, "There is a long-shot legal theory, floated by Republicans before the election, that Republican-friendly legislatures in places such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could ignore the popular vote in their states and appoint their own electors". Just saying?
But they have Dem Governors who would need to sign it off AIUI.
Tony Schwarz who ghost-wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump was interviewed by Evan Davis on R4 earlier this evening. He basically answered your question for you.
There is no plan, just a horror of losing and determination to deny it as long as possible.
Appreciated. Trump and his inner cabal are morons. However, as he IS the president and wants to stay President. And the entire GOP leadership aren't morons. So there will be a plan even if it isn't his.
As others elude to above, the Electoral College has to be the target. Doesn't matter what people think they voted for, they're voting for Electors. Who don't even have to represent their views.
By what possible mechanism do Republicans "target" the Electoral College? Where Trump wins a state, the state GOP provides the slate of electors. Where Biden wins a state, the state Democratic Party provides the slate of electors. Several states (although not all) prevent completely or heavily sanction faithless electors. I'm sorry - people saying there's a trick involving the Electoral College simply don't understand how it works.
There isn't a plan here, from Trump or anyone else. Trump has some doomed cases not involving sufficient numbers of voters to cast into doubt any, let alone several, of the states Biden won. He will try and fail to overturn or annul results, but it's all utterly hopeless. Then the Electoral College will announce Biden as President on 14 December, and he'll be inaugurated on 20 January. Trump will never accept it was fair, protecting his ego at the cost of badly damaging democracy in America. Senate Republicans know what the reality is but most of them can't say it as they don't want Trump to set his army of fanatical, drooling morons on them next time they face a primary election.
For some reason, people (both for and strongly against Trump) seem to believe that people who can't book a room for a press conference at the Four Seasons hotel are currently working on the finer points of a plan so brilliant that it will blow our minds. They really, really aren't.
I didn't say it was a *viable* plan. There can be no viable plan. But in the minds of the morons surrounding the Donald its a *brilliant* plan. Epic even. How they win back the TRUE victory or whatever.
It seems to me that there are a number of people surrounding Trump (and including himself) who really know virtually nothing about how the US institutions actually work. When Trump sees stuff said on Fox News or reads stuff on twitter from people who claim authority i think he actually believes it. So he's picking up a little bit of stuff about how states can overrule the voters in selecting electors, and he believes that SCOTUS are totally corruptible and in his pocket. He may well believe all these made stories about electoral fraud that he's been reading. And in his own mind, and those of the likes of his sons, he's thinking he's got a viable route to staying in power. Totally legally as well!
This is why the GOP silence is so disturbing. He needs to be disabused of these fantasies, and sat down and told the truth about how the US works. And if he refuses to accept it then, they have to get Pence to kick him out.
...or just let the electoral processes flow naturally without illegal interference and he'll be out anyway by 20th January.
From the Guardian, "There is a long-shot legal theory, floated by Republicans before the election, that Republican-friendly legislatures in places such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could ignore the popular vote in their states and appoint their own electors". Just saying?
PA legislature has already said don’t be silly to that idea.
The Grauniad article did say it was "a long shot". Being as it's Trump, who knows where this is all going. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves though.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
Correct. But you know what the left are like on this site. Always complaining always preferring the handouts!
We moderates need to be brave and stand firm for the best interests of Britain and it's people 👍
I do worry that a) how the peer review can trust the data and b) all these countries that have ordered this vaccine. We could get a situation where a load of countries have immunized their population with a particular level of protection and actually they haven't.
Away from politics I'm really putting a lot of hope into the vaccines. I've said all along not for myself, I don't care about myself getting it, but my grandparents are in their 90s and late 80s. I care for them.
As far as I'm concerned once my grandparents have had the vaccine I'm much happier for life to get back to normal as fast as humanly possible. I haven't seen them since just after the new year (they went into isolation before lockdown and have never come out of it) and I miss them a lot.
I honestly couldn't care less about how much PR money is spent fighting antivax nonsense, it is money well spent. What I care about is it would be fantastic to see my grandparents again and give them a hug again. If a vaccine is possible before Christmas (or in the New Year) that makes that possible then I will be very emotional and happy for that and that matters more than anything else.
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
No, I was a Remainer, I respected the Brexit vote but always wanted a Deal with the EU and I have never been a fan of Cummings
Really complicated this Conservative politics. So you stand with lifelong conservative remainers who respected brexit vote, sought deal with EU, and not fan of Cummings like Hammond and Gauke?
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
A good point!
I am still here thanks to Boris' inch-perfect handling of Covid, so mustn't grumble. There are however in excess of 50,000 people who can't make my claim.
I predict that by this time next week you will need a magnifying glass to identify where Boris' Brexit deal differs from May's Brexit deal but Boris will nonetheless like the shameless salesman he is sell it as the greatest deal in our history with cake for all and with Boris having a majority of 80 unlike May we will all move on bar the diehards
Whose side are you on? Has your account been hacked? 😯
No, I was a Remainer, I respected the Brexit vote but always wanted a Deal with the EU and I have never been a fan of Cummings
Really complicated this Conservative politics. So you stand with lifelong conservative remainers who respected brexit vote, sought deal with EU, and not fan of Cummings like Hammond and Gauke?
Strict lockdowns in Germany, France, Italy and Spain don't seem to be working that well. The problem is some people are inevitably going to say the solution is to have even more strict lockdowns, (which would be difficult in France and Spain).
I will stick my neck out and predict that it proves effective, and probably safe. Though there are undoubtedly slightly more doubts about it than the Pfizer vaccine.
The recent upsurge in US infections has provided ‘events’ more quickly than predicted.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
The news about the vaccine is great and very encouraging but I think you suggesting that those will be vaccinated by Xmas is wishful thinking. The full data hasnt even been published yet so lets wait and see all the results and what the roll out will be. For me its more realistic to be looking at spring for the vaccine to be making a huge difference to things. With due respect you sound like Boris and his 'almost normal Xmas' Yes its great news so far with the vaccine but your talk of we will celebrate Xmas while everyone else continues to suffer sounds over optimistic and from the Boris playbook.
That means we're rapidly approaching 1.01 territory in Arizona. If the lead stays where it is, but the number of of outstanding ballots drops below 25,000 (of which perhaps 15,000 will end up actually being counted) then we can probably call the race.
Bad news for Trump in Arizona: there's been a drop of 4,843 votes, and they've gone 50.2/49.8 for Biden.
This means Trump needs 68.3% of the remaining ballot - assuming, of course, that every provisional "counts".
I don't think Trump isn't going to overturn the lead. His best hope is getting it into official recount territory.
I thought Arizona's recount rules were extremely, extremely strict?
Yes, the margin for an automatic recount needs to be within 0.1% of the combined Biden + Trump vote and no requests are otherwise allowed. Based on the ballots cast so far that would be about 3,300 compared to the current 12,800 Biden lead.
If some nations have been much more effective at arranging for vaccine supplies expect at least some media backlash about selfishly hoarding it as other places start to go through bad second waves and talk about sharing it equally across the globe or something.
Bad news for Trump in Arizona: there's been a drop of 4,843 votes, and they've gone 50.2/49.8 for Biden.
This means Trump needs 68.3% of the remaining ballot - assuming, of course, that every provisional "counts".
I don't think Trump isn't going to overturn the lead. His best hope is getting it into official recount territory.
I thought Arizona's recount rules were extremely, extremely strict?
Yes, the margin for an automatic recount needs to be within 0.1% of the combined Biden + Trump vote and no requests are otherwise allowed. Based on the ballots cast so far that would be about 3,300 compared to the current 12,800 Biden lead.
There's a chance Trump might get the lead down to 3K. Not a very high one.
Bad news for Trump in Arizona: there's been a drop of 4,843 votes, and they've gone 50.2/49.8 for Biden.
This means Trump needs 68.3% of the remaining ballot - assuming, of course, that every provisional "counts".
I don't think Trump isn't going to overturn the lead. His best hope is getting it into official recount territory.
I thought Arizona's recount rules were extremely, extremely strict?
Yes, the margin for an automatic recount needs to be within 0.1% of the combined Biden + Trump vote and no requests are otherwise allowed. Based on the ballots cast so far that would be about 3,300 compared to the current 12,800 Biden lead.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
They are not our vaccines, they are pfizer vaccines we have bought some of. So has the EU, about as much per capita as we have, so why French morgues are expected to overflow differentially is a mystery. Why does a striking success by a US pharma corp disprove the thesis that the UK PM is a fat, lazy, corrupt and incompetent arse?
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
The news about the vaccine is great and very encouraging but I think you suggesting that those will be vaccinated by Xmas is wishful thinking. The full data hasnt even been published yet so lets wait and see all the results and what the roll out will be. For me its more realistic to be looking at spring for the vaccine to be making a huge difference to things. With due respect you sound like Boris and his 'almost normal Xmas' Yes its great news so far with the vaccine but your talk of we will celebrate Xmas while everyone else continues to suffer sounds over optimistic and from the Boris playbook.
I don't think it will be over by Christmas by any means but I think we could see it started to be rolled out by Christmas. Its meant to be rolled out to Care Homes first and that shouldn't be too difficult logistically and would make a mammoth immediate difference to the risk to NHS capacity. I could see that being well underway by Christmas.
Over 85s are meant to be the second set to get it, my grandparents would fall in this category (I don't think they've done an over 90s category), I expect this will be around January.
The virus will obviously still be around for much longer and the risk of long covid etc means we should certainly take it seriously - I expect I'll still be wearing a facemask until the Spring - but the risks to society will be majorly reduced once the most vulnerable are vaccinated.
Ferrets. The phrase is 'ferrets in a sack', not 'rats in a sack'. You'd have thought that the Labour Party, of all people, would know that.
No in both South Wales and the West Midlands the term is definately "rats in a sack". Labour Party internecine wars are indeed tantamount to "rats in a sack".
Dare I say, for Johnson's Conservative Government, this evening, both "rats in a sack" and "rats leaving the sinking ship" would seem to apply.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
They are not our vaccines, they are pfizer vaccines we have bought some of. So has the EU, about as much per capita as we have, so why French morgues are expected to overflow differentially is a mystery. Why does a striking success by a US pharma corp disprove the thesis that the UK PM is a fat, lazy, corrupt and incompetent arse?
Because we organised to get some of the first doses of the vaccine that are produced and the French etc didn't. Because the much-maligned vaccine taskforce have done an incredibly brilliantly good job to which we should all be very grateful for. Also because the French are facing a caseload right now that seems worse than our first wave.
It matters not how he does it. If he wins the EC on Dec 14 Trump will remain in office, neither Secret service or Military will remove him, nor will Dems urge their supporters to take up arms, any sort of violence plays straight into Trumps hands. If Trump achieves Scenario 1 or 2, the battle ground will be courts and ballot boxes in the years to come.
We have had 4 years of Trump, some more of it isn’t the end of the world when compared to actual violence. We agree so far?
Completely disagree.
If Biden is seen to have won, and the Electoral College decides otherwise then there will be civil war in the US.
I don't know about civil war, but the people will be entitled to use the minimum action necessary to prevent the end of democracy. A general strike, a blockade of the White House, a refusal to pay taxes could be starters.
I don't think it'll be necessary. Trump is setting himself up to be The Opposition. He'll be good at it, and he's entitled to try that and stand next time or have an anointed acolyte.. Override this election? Nah.
Thank you, I think we agree, if Republicans gerrymander the college and SC back them it’s a crisis, but the army or secret service won’t then evict him, nor the democrats result to anything other than you described, mass rally’s, civil disobedience, the courts. I don’t know about blockades though, that, and any blockade busting violence plays into Trumps hands.
The bit I disagree with though, you paint such a rosy future for Trump outside the whitehouse. Truth is, it’s stay in control or lose control and end up to his eyebrows in trouble isn’t it?
Has the Supreme Court - at any point - done anything that would lead you to believe they'd back Trump on this?
No, but there may be subtler ways to get there that shift the blame around.
Say Trump (not saying he's this competent but bear with me) staged a national security event that prevented the Electoral College from meeting or prevented some of the electors from getting there. Then the thing should go to the House, but the Dems realize they'll pick Trump so they refuse to meet, in the hope of seating Pelosi. Then SCOTUS conservatives make a ruling to throw the thing back to House congressional delegations, and they pick Trump.
If you can create enough chaos and disruption, while having your thumb on most of the scales, you may be able to exploit a succession of small biases, without forcing any one party to commit to a big one.
As SeaShanty pointed out, the EC does not meet in one place, but in 51:
"Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist; and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11)."
"January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results (3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which “shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.”
"Joint Session Challenges to Electoral Vote Returns While the tellers announce the results, Members may object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced. Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded."
Re: question of "faithless electors" note that recent SCOTUS rulings give teeth to state laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket to which they are pledged when their party presidential & vp slate won the statewide popular vote. For example, in WA state law says that an elector who attempts to vote for candidate(s) other than pledged is automatically removed and replaced by an elector who will vote for the statewide winner.
Re: legislatures doing post-EDay end-runs to replace elected electors, note that this would require solid party line votes to accomplish in various state legislatures, plus plethora of legal hoops & hurdles. Do NOT think this is a good bet - heated rhetoric is one thing, rash over-reaction is quite another.
Thank you 🙂. This is very reassuring.
I have enjoyed all your posts this year shanty.
What do you make from the fact it’s not just hot air from White House? There is genuine pressure out there on GOP leadership because honouring the vote effectively means siding with Biden and dropping Trump in it? If something stupid happens it’s result of that pressure being put on?
Honouring the vote does not mean siding with anyone. Just the constitution and the institutions of democracy.
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. But that’s not the point I was making, have been making for two days, and obviously poorly as no one understands.
Honouring the democratic vote result shouldn’t be about siding with anyone. It should be the American, patriotic thing to do. As American as apple pie and cream on Sundays. Jack Daniels. Forward passes in rugby variant. Tom and Jerry (though with warning these days about racial tropes). Mickey Mouse. Mini Mouse. Hollywood. Flamingo Road. Picket fences etc etc Because, despite so much that divides the great house of America, Religion, Race, Wealth, politics, one thing unites it all together, the thing they all believe in above everything else. And that is America itself. It’s plurality. That it is just so damn good at what it does.
Except taking one side or another is exactly how Trump has made it, going against him or not is the narrative his voters and lot of GOP have bought, placing huge pressure on the rest. Basically he still has the support to frighten them, bully them, they are still scared of him.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
They are not our vaccines, they are pfizer vaccines we have bought some of. So has the EU, about as much per capita as we have, so why French morgues are expected to overflow differentially is a mystery. Why does a striking success by a US pharma corp disprove the thesis that the UK PM is a fat, lazy, corrupt and incompetent arse?
We're due to get our doses by year end, while the EU won't get them until Jan/Feb. So we're ahead, but not massively.
I suspect Boris has become emboldened by the Biden win: Trump is a has-been and raving; Brexit is teetering on the edge of calamity and its proponents are shrunken men. Boris knows that hard-Right populism has had its day, so is now leaping on the centrist-liberal bandwagon - hence his enthusiasm for climate policy. Dom and the rest of the Brexit mob are now phantoms from a forsaken past and can easily be dispensed with.
If that is what is happening then his, call it flexibility, will be a boon at this moment at least, though it was just days ago people were implying how distraught he would be by Trump going as if he was a committed hard right populist. I'm getting whiplash.
Boris has always been a liberal. Its why I support him wholeheartedly.
The idea he is a Trumpian populist has always been nonsense.
Johnson is a performative politician, a clown rather than a serious thinker. He has some populist tendencies, more visible in his "journalism" than his politics, though at the dispatch box he's been toying with more populist themes to combat Starmer, with faint echoes of some of his colleagues more serious attacks on the legal system. For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
Looking at your boxes there, does Maggie Thatcher tick them?
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
The news about the vaccine is great and very encouraging but I think you suggesting that those will be vaccinated by Xmas is wishful thinking. The full data hasnt even been published yet so lets wait and see all the results and what the roll out will be. For me its more realistic to be looking at spring for the vaccine to be making a huge difference to things. With due respect you sound like Boris and his 'almost normal Xmas' Yes its great news so far with the vaccine but your talk of we will celebrate Xmas while everyone else continues to suffer sounds over optimistic and from the Boris playbook.
I don't think it will be over by Christmas by any means but I think we could see it started to be rolled out by Christmas. Its meant to be rolled out to Care Homes first and that shouldn't be too difficult logistically and would make a mammoth immediate difference to the risk to NHS capacity. I could see that being well underway by Christmas.
Over 85s are meant to be the second set to get it, my grandparents would fall in this category (I don't think they've done an over 90s category), I expect this will be around January.
The virus will obviously still be around for much longer and the risk of long covid etc means we should certainly take it seriously - I expect I'll still be wearing a facemask until the Spring - but the risks to society will be majorly reduced once the most vulnerable are vaccinated.
I think that's spot on. There will be some people - a few tens of thousands - who will get the vaccine by Christmas. For healthy males in their 30s (like... errr... you...) I'd reckon on it being late summer.
BUT.
Once the most vulnerable are protected, we can start loosening restrictions anyway.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
They are not our vaccines, they are pfizer vaccines we have bought some of. So has the EU, about as much per capita as we have, so why French morgues are expected to overflow differentially is a mystery. Why does a striking success by a US pharma corp disprove the thesis that the UK PM is a fat, lazy, corrupt and incompetent arse?
Because we organised to get some of the first doses of the vaccine that are produced and the French etc didn't. Because the much-maligned vaccine taskforce have done an incredibly brilliantly good job to which we should all be very grateful for. Also because the French are facing a caseload right now that seems worse than our first wave.
"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis."
She really, really, said that. Much maligned my arse.
Strict lockdowns in Germany, France, Italy and Spain don't seem to be working that well. The problem is some people are inevitably going to say the solution is to have even more strict lockdowns, (which would be difficult in France and Spain).
Germany's lockdown isn't that strict. For example up to 10 people from 2 households can still meet at home. (Though it varies a bit from state to state; I'm going by Hamburg because it happens to be where my son lives.) And shops remain open. There is quite a lot of room to tighten it if necessary.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
Even if it did Trump would still be the previous President to Harris, Farage was always the true Trump fan here not Boris, Trump was only useful to Boris as President, now he has lost and Biden is President elect Boris will throw him under the bus exactly as he is throwing the No Deal hardliners under a bus tonight while basking in the poll boost he will get from insulting Trump.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
The news about the vaccine is great and very encouraging but I think you suggesting that those will be vaccinated by Xmas is wishful thinking. The full data hasnt even been published yet so lets wait and see all the results and what the roll out will be. For me its more realistic to be looking at spring for the vaccine to be making a huge difference to things. With due respect you sound like Boris and his 'almost normal Xmas' Yes its great news so far with the vaccine but your talk of we will celebrate Xmas while everyone else continues to suffer sounds over optimistic and from the Boris playbook.
I don't think it will be over by Christmas by any means but I think we could see it started to be rolled out by Christmas. Its meant to be rolled out to Care Homes first and that shouldn't be too difficult logistically and would make a mammoth immediate difference to the risk to NHS capacity. I could see that being well underway by Christmas.
Over 85s are meant to be the second set to get it, my grandparents would fall in this category (I don't think they've done an over 90s category), I expect this will be around January.
The virus will obviously still be around for much longer and the risk of long covid etc means we should certainly take it seriously - I expect I'll still be wearing a facemask until the Spring - but the risks to society will be majorly reduced once the most vulnerable are vaccinated.
I think that's spot on. There will be some people - a few tens of thousands - who will get the vaccine by Christmas. For healthy males in their 30s (like... errr... you...) I'd reckon on it being late summer.
BUT.
Once the most vulnerable are protected, we can start loosening restrictions anyway.
Exactly. While the virus may kill some healthy young males in their 30s (and long covid is real) we are not the reason we have the restrictions. We're having these restrictions to protect others not ourselves.
Once the others have a vaccine to protect them, there is no longer a reason to be as restricted as we are now.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I thought it was a very good remark to make that will have been appreciated by Biden.
And if Boris had lost an election last week he would be "previous" by now already. Weird system the Americans have that Trump gets to linger on like a bad smell for so long afterwards but he's moving on and too right too.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
Bad news for Trump in Arizona: there's been a drop of 4,843 votes, and they've gone 50.2/49.8 for Biden.
This means Trump needs 68.3% of the remaining ballot - assuming, of course, that every provisional "counts".
I don't think Trump isn't going to overturn the lead. His best hope is getting it into official recount territory.
I thought Arizona's recount rules were extremely, extremely strict?
Yes, the margin for an automatic recount needs to be within 0.1% of the combined Biden + Trump vote and no requests are otherwise allowed. Based on the ballots cast so far that would be about 3,300 compared to the current 12,800 Biden lead.
I suspect Boris has become emboldened by the Biden win: Trump is a has-been and raving; Brexit is teetering on the edge of calamity and its proponents are shrunken men. Boris knows that hard-Right populism has had its day, so is now leaping on the centrist-liberal bandwagon - hence his enthusiasm for climate policy. Dom and the rest of the Brexit mob are now phantoms from a forsaken past and can easily be dispensed with.
If that is what is happening then his, call it flexibility, will be a boon at this moment at least, though it was just days ago people were implying how distraught he would be by Trump going as if he was a committed hard right populist. I'm getting whiplash.
Boris has always been a liberal. Its why I support him wholeheartedly.
The idea he is a Trumpian populist has always been nonsense.
Johnson is a performative politician, a clown rather than a serious thinker. He has some populist tendencies, more visible in his "journalism" than his politics, though at the dispatch box he's been toying with more populist themes to combat Starmer, with faint echoes of some of his colleagues more serious attacks on the legal system. For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
Looking at your boxes there, does Maggie Thatcher tick them?
It matters not how he does it. If he wins the EC on Dec 14 Trump will remain in office, neither Secret service or Military will remove him, nor will Dems urge their supporters to take up arms, any sort of violence plays straight into Trumps hands. If Trump achieves Scenario 1 or 2, the battle ground will be courts and ballot boxes in the years to come.
We have had 4 years of Trump, some more of it isn’t the end of the world when compared to actual violence. We agree so far?
Completely disagree.
If Biden is seen to have won, and the Electoral College decides otherwise then there will be civil war in the US.
I don't know about civil war, but the people will be entitled to use the minimum action necessary to prevent the end of democracy. A general strike, a blockade of the White House, a refusal to pay taxes could be starters.
I don't think it'll be necessary. Trump is setting himself up to be The Opposition. He'll be good at it, and he's entitled to try that and stand next time or have an anointed acolyte.. Override this election? Nah.
Thank you, I think we agree, if Republicans gerrymander the college and SC back them it’s a crisis, but the army or secret service won’t then evict him, nor the democrats result to anything other than you described, mass rally’s, civil disobedience, the courts. I don’t know about blockades though, that, and any blockade busting violence plays into Trumps hands.
The bit I disagree with though, you paint such a rosy future for Trump outside the whitehouse. Truth is, it’s stay in control or lose control and end up to his eyebrows in trouble isn’t it?
Has the Supreme Court - at any point - done anything that would lead you to believe they'd back Trump on this?
No, but there may be subtler ways to get there that shift the blame around.
Say Trump (not saying he's this competent but bear with me) staged a national security event that prevented the Electoral College from meeting or prevented some of the electors from getting there. Then the thing should go to the House, but the Dems realize they'll pick Trump so they refuse to meet, in the hope of seating Pelosi. Then SCOTUS conservatives make a ruling to throw the thing back to House congressional delegations, and they pick Trump.
If you can create enough chaos and disruption, while having your thumb on most of the scales, you may be able to exploit a succession of small biases, without forcing any one party to commit to a big one.
As SeaShanty pointed out, the EC does not meet in one place, but in 51:
"Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist; and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11)."
"January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results (3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which “shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.”
"Joint Session Challenges to Electoral Vote Returns While the tellers announce the results, Members may object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced. Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded."
Re: question of "faithless electors" note that recent SCOTUS rulings give teeth to state laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket to which they are pledged when their party presidential & vp slate won the statewide popular vote. For example, in WA state law says that an elector who attempts to vote for candidate(s) other than pledged is automatically removed and replaced by an elector who will vote for the statewide winner.
Re: legislatures doing post-EDay end-runs to replace elected electors, note that this would require solid party line votes to accomplish in various state legislatures, plus plethora of legal hoops & hurdles. Do NOT think this is a good bet - heated rhetoric is one thing, rash over-reaction is quite another.
Thank you 🙂. This is very reassuring.
I have enjoyed all your posts this year shanty.
What do you make from the fact it’s not just hot air from White House? There is genuine pressure out there on GOP leadership because honouring the vote effectively means siding with Biden and dropping Trump in it? If something stupid happens it’s result of that pressure being put on?
Honouring the vote does not mean siding with anyone. Just the constitution and the institutions of democracy.
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. But that’s not the point I was making, have been making for two days, and obviously poorly as no one understands.
Honouring the democratic vote result shouldn’t be about siding with anyone. It should be the American, patriotic thing to do. As American as apple pie and cream on Sundays. Jack Daniels. Forward passes in rugby variant. Tom and Jerry (though with warning these days about racial tropes). Mickey Mouse. Mini Mouse. Hollywood. Flamingo Road. Picket fences etc etc Because, despite so much that divides the great house of America, Religion, Race, Wealth, politics, one thing unites it all together, the thing they all believe in above everything else. And that is America itself. It’s plurality. That it is just so damn good at what it does.
Except taking one side or another is exactly how Trump has made it, going against him or not is the narrative his voters and lot of GOP have bought, placing huge pressure on the rest. Basically he still has the support to frighten them, bully them, they are still scared of him.
Nor really anything to do with patriotism; it is simply the law as set out by the federal and state constitutions. And the large majority of elected or appointed officials will follow the law.
I understand that there is a large number of people who believe, or half believe (in the absence of any real evidence) that the vote might not have been conducted fairly, but it is unlikely that they will do anything about it other than bring numbers of fruitless lawsuits to various courts.
I’ll agree that the Republican leadership has been largely craven, or even malign in not repudiating Trump’s baseless claims, and that Trump, if he had the right levers at his disposal, might engineer something along the lines of a coup. It is just quite hard to see how he might do that.
It matters not how he does it. If he wins the EC on Dec 14 Trump will remain in office, neither Secret service or Military will remove him, nor will Dems urge their supporters to take up arms, any sort of violence plays straight into Trumps hands. If Trump achieves Scenario 1 or 2, the battle ground will be courts and ballot boxes in the years to come.
We have had 4 years of Trump, some more of it isn’t the end of the world when compared to actual violence. We agree so far?
Completely disagree.
If Biden is seen to have won, and the Electoral College decides otherwise then there will be civil war in the US.
I don't know about civil war, but the people will be entitled to use the minimum action necessary to prevent the end of democracy. A general strike, a blockade of the White House, a refusal to pay taxes could be starters.
I don't think it'll be necessary. Trump is setting himself up to be The Opposition. He'll be good at it, and he's entitled to try that and stand next time or have an anointed acolyte.. Override this election? Nah.
Thank you, I think we agree, if Republicans gerrymander the college and SC back them it’s a crisis, but the army or secret service won’t then evict him, nor the democrats result to anything other than you described, mass rally’s, civil disobedience, the courts. I don’t know about blockades though, that, and any blockade busting violence plays into Trumps hands.
The bit I disagree with though, you paint such a rosy future for Trump outside the whitehouse. Truth is, it’s stay in control or lose control and end up to his eyebrows in trouble isn’t it?
Has the Supreme Court - at any point - done anything that would lead you to believe they'd back Trump on this?
No, but there may be subtler ways to get there that shift the blame around.
Say Trump (not saying he's this competent but bear with me) staged a national security event that prevented the Electoral College from meeting or prevented some of the electors from getting there. Then the thing should go to the House, but the Dems realize they'll pick Trump so they refuse to meet, in the hope of seating Pelosi. Then SCOTUS conservatives make a ruling to throw the thing back to House congressional delegations, and they pick Trump.
If you can create enough chaos and disruption, while having your thumb on most of the scales, you may be able to exploit a succession of small biases, without forcing any one party to commit to a big one.
As SeaShanty pointed out, the EC does not meet in one place, but in 51:
"Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist; and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11)."
"January 6, 2021: Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes and Declare Election Results Meets On January 6, or another date set by law, the Senate and House of Representatives assemble at 1:00 p.m. in a joint session at the Capitol, in the House chamber, to count the electoral votes and declare the results (3 U.S.C. §15). The Vice President presides as President of the Senate. The Vice President opens the certificates and presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber. The tellers read and make a list of the returns. When the votes have been ascertained and counted, the tellers transmit them to the Vice President. If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the Vice President announces the results, which “shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President.”
"Joint Session Challenges to Electoral Vote Returns While the tellers announce the results, Members may object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced. Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded."
Re: question of "faithless electors" note that recent SCOTUS rulings give teeth to state laws requiring electors to vote for the ticket to which they are pledged when their party presidential & vp slate won the statewide popular vote. For example, in WA state law says that an elector who attempts to vote for candidate(s) other than pledged is automatically removed and replaced by an elector who will vote for the statewide winner.
Re: legislatures doing post-EDay end-runs to replace elected electors, note that this would require solid party line votes to accomplish in various state legislatures, plus plethora of legal hoops & hurdles. Do NOT think this is a good bet - heated rhetoric is one thing, rash over-reaction is quite another.
Thank you 🙂. This is very reassuring.
I have enjoyed all your posts this year shanty.
What do you make from the fact it’s not just hot air from White House? There is genuine pressure out there on GOP leadership because honouring the vote effectively means siding with Biden and dropping Trump in it? If something stupid happens it’s result of that pressure being put on?
Honouring the vote does not mean siding with anyone. Just the constitution and the institutions of democracy.
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. But that’s not the point I was making, have been making for two days, and obviously poorly as no one understands.
Honouring the democratic vote result shouldn’t be about siding with anyone. It should be the American, patriotic thing to do. As American as apple pie and cream on Sundays. Jack Daniels. Forward passes in rugby variant. Tom and Jerry (though with warning these days about racial tropes). Mickey Mouse. Mini Mouse. Hollywood. Flamingo Road. Picket fences etc etc Because, despite so much that divides the great house of America, Religion, Race, Wealth, politics, one thing unites it all together, the thing they all believe in above everything else. And that is America itself. It’s plurality. That it is just so damn good at what it does.
Except taking one side or another is exactly how Trump has made it, going against him or not is the narrative his voters and lot of GOP have bought, placing huge pressure on the rest. Basically he still has the support to frighten them, bully them, they are still scared of him.
World leaders have already congratulated Biden, he will be elected President when the EC meets on 14th December.
All Trump can do is bully GOP leaders and elected representatives not to break ranks with him and to ensure the GOP remains his party when he leaves office in January, at which point he will aim to be King over the Water in exile for the party and default leader of the opposition to the Biden administration when he returns to Mar a Lago
I suspect Boris has become emboldened by the Biden win: Trump is a has-been and raving; Brexit is teetering on the edge of calamity and its proponents are shrunken men. Boris knows that hard-Right populism has had its day, so is now leaping on the centrist-liberal bandwagon - hence his enthusiasm for climate policy. Dom and the rest of the Brexit mob are now phantoms from a forsaken past and can easily be dispensed with.
If that is what is happening then his, call it flexibility, will be a boon at this moment at least, though it was just days ago people were implying how distraught he would be by Trump going as if he was a committed hard right populist. I'm getting whiplash.
Boris has always been a liberal. Its why I support him wholeheartedly.
The idea he is a Trumpian populist has always been nonsense.
Johnson is a performative politician, a clown rather than a serious thinker. He has some populist tendencies, more visible in his "journalism" than his politics, though at the dispatch box he's been toying with more populist themes to combat Starmer, with faint echoes of some of his colleagues more serious attacks on the legal system. For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
Looking at your boxes there, does Maggie Thatcher tick them?
Some of them aye, some of them no. What of it?
Well, reading your post struck me she is the very opposite of Boris, so should tick quite a few of them. Strategic. Respected. Consistent. Unyielding. Clear sense of direction and outcomes. The understanding good leadership is to set strong example. Where HY has written Boris chose Brexit as differential to obtain top job, it’s exactly what Maggie would never do.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
Well said.
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
They are not our vaccines, they are pfizer vaccines we have bought some of. So has the EU, about as much per capita as we have, so why French morgues are expected to overflow differentially is a mystery. Why does a striking success by a US pharma corp disprove the thesis that the UK PM is a fat, lazy, corrupt and incompetent arse?
Because we organised to get some of the first doses of the vaccine that are produced and the French etc didn't. Because the much-maligned vaccine taskforce have done an incredibly brilliantly good job to which we should all be very grateful for. Also because the French are facing a caseload right now that seems worse than our first wave.
It would be something of an exaggeration to say that the vaccine task force did ‘an incredibly brilliant good job’, though it has done a good one.
The government made a very good decision indeed, quite early on, to very significantly fund vaccine development and procurement. It was probably the only truly proactive action they took during the pandemic (unless you count discharging sick patients from hospitals in March); everything else was reaction, often a week or three late. Scientists at pharmaceutical and biotech companies did indeed do brilliant jobs - with elements of luck, as with the Oxford vaccine, repurposing platforms already in fairly advanced development.
Tony Schwarz who ghost-wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump was interviewed by Evan Davis on R4 earlier this evening. He basically answered your question for you.
There is no plan, just a horror of losing and determination to deny it as long as possible.
Appreciated. Trump and his inner cabal are morons. However, as he IS the president and wants to stay President. And the entire GOP leadership aren't morons. So there will be a plan even if it isn't his.
As others elude to above, the Electoral College has to be the target. Doesn't matter what people think they voted for, they're voting for Electors. Who don't even have to represent their views.
By what possible mechanism do Republicans "target" the Electoral College? Where Trump wins a state, the state GOP provides the slate of electors. Where Biden wins a state, the state Democratic Party provides the slate of electors. Several states (although not all) prevent completely or heavily sanction faithless electors. I'm sorry - people saying there's a trick involving the Electoral College simply don't understand how it works.
There isn't a plan here, from Trump or anyone else. Trump has some doomed cases not involving sufficient numbers of voters to cast into doubt any, let alone several, of the states Biden won. He will try and fail to overturn or annul results, but it's all utterly hopeless. Then the Electoral College will announce Biden as President on 14 December, and he'll be inaugurated on 20 January. Trump will never accept it was fair, protecting his ego at the cost of badly damaging democracy in America. Senate Republicans know what the reality is but most of them can't say it as they don't want Trump to set his army of fanatical, drooling morons on them next time they face a primary election.
For some reason, people (both for and strongly against Trump) seem to believe that people who can't book a room for a press conference at the Four Seasons hotel are currently working on the finer points of a plan so brilliant that it will blow our minds. They really, really aren't.
I didn't say it was a *viable* plan. There can be no viable plan. But in the minds of the morons surrounding the Donald its a *brilliant* plan. Epic even. How they win back the TRUE victory or whatever.
It seems to me that there are a number of people surrounding Trump (and including himself) who really know virtually nothing about how the US institutions actually work. When Trump sees stuff said on Fox News or reads stuff on twitter from people who claim authority i think he actually believes it. So he's picking up a little bit of stuff about how states can overrule the voters in selecting electors, and he believes that SCOTUS are totally corruptible and in his pocket. He may well believe all these made stories about electoral fraud that he's been reading. And in his own mind, and those of the likes of his sons, he's thinking he's got a viable route to staying in power. Totally legally as well!
This is why the GOP silence is so disturbing. He needs to be disabused of these fantasies, and sat down and told the truth about how the US works. And if he refuses to accept it then, they have to get Pence to kick him out.
...or just let the electoral processes flow naturally without illegal interference and he'll be out anyway by 20th January.
From the Guardian, "There is a long-shot legal theory, floated by Republicans before the election, that Republican-friendly legislatures in places such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could ignore the popular vote in their states and appoint their own electors". Just saying?
But they have Dem Governors who would need to sign it off AIUI.
And as I keep saying, trying to apply it to the current election would be an ex post facto law, explicitly banned by the US Constitution at both state and federal level. SCOTUS isn’t going to even try to find a way around that, even if they wanted to.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
It is a bit rude, but it’s probably not a bad thing. There’s been too much pandering to Trump’s sensitivities, and a bit of Johnsonian gaffery does its bit towards redressing the balance.
Tony Schwarz who ghost-wrote The Art of the Deal for Trump was interviewed by Evan Davis on R4 earlier this evening. He basically answered your question for you.
There is no plan, just a horror of losing and determination to deny it as long as possible.
Appreciated. Trump and his inner cabal are morons. However, as he IS the president and wants to stay President. And the entire GOP leadership aren't morons. So there will be a plan even if it isn't his.
As others elude to above, the Electoral College has to be the target. Doesn't matter what people think they voted for, they're voting for Electors. Who don't even have to represent their views.
By what possible mechanism do Republicans "target" the Electoral College? Where Trump wins a state, the state GOP provides the slate of electors. Where Biden wins a state, the state Democratic Party provides the slate of electors. Several states (although not all) prevent completely or heavily sanction faithless electors. I'm sorry - people saying there's a trick involving the Electoral College simply don't understand how it works.
There isn't a plan here, from Trump or anyone else. Trump has some doomed cases not involving sufficient numbers of voters to cast into doubt any, let alone several, of the states Biden won. He will try and fail to overturn or annul results, but it's all utterly hopeless. Then the Electoral College will announce Biden as President on 14 December, and he'll be inaugurated on 20 January. Trump will never accept it was fair, protecting his ego at the cost of badly damaging democracy in America. Senate Republicans know what the reality is but most of them can't say it as they don't want Trump to set his army of fanatical, drooling morons on them next time they face a primary election.
For some reason, people (both for and strongly against Trump) seem to believe that people who can't book a room for a press conference at the Four Seasons hotel are currently working on the finer points of a plan so brilliant that it will blow our minds. They really, really aren't.
I didn't say it was a *viable* plan. There can be no viable plan. But in the minds of the morons surrounding the Donald its a *brilliant* plan. Epic even. How they win back the TRUE victory or whatever.
It seems to me that there are a number of people surrounding Trump (and including himself) who really know virtually nothing about how the US institutions actually work. When Trump sees stuff said on Fox News or reads stuff on twitter from people who claim authority i think he actually believes it. So he's picking up a little bit of stuff about how states can overrule the voters in selecting electors, and he believes that SCOTUS are totally corruptible and in his pocket. He may well believe all these made stories about electoral fraud that he's been reading. And in his own mind, and those of the likes of his sons, he's thinking he's got a viable route to staying in power. Totally legally as well!
This is why the GOP silence is so disturbing. He needs to be disabused of these fantasies, and sat down and told the truth about how the US works. And if he refuses to accept it then, they have to get Pence to kick him out.
...or just let the electoral processes flow naturally without illegal interference and he'll be out anyway by 20th January.
From the Guardian, "There is a long-shot legal theory, floated by Republicans before the election, that Republican-friendly legislatures in places such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could ignore the popular vote in their states and appoint their own electors". Just saying?
But they have Dem Governors who would need to sign it off AIUI.
And as I keep saying, trying to apply it to the current election would be an ex post facto law, explicitly banned by the US Constitution at both state and federal level. SCOTUS isn’t going to even try to find a way around that, even if they wanted to.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Why is it dumb?
Do you think Biden objects?
Trump is history, the world is moving on without him. If he doesn't understand that the rest of the democratic world which values democracy is making it abundantly clear where they stand. Biden won and we stand by democracy. This was as firm a signal he could make were he stands with Trump's attempts to usurp democracy.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
I suspect Boris has become emboldened by the Biden win: Trump is a has-been and raving; Brexit is teetering on the edge of calamity and its proponents are shrunken men. Boris knows that hard-Right populism has had its day, so is now leaping on the centrist-liberal bandwagon - hence his enthusiasm for climate policy. Dom and the rest of the Brexit mob are now phantoms from a forsaken past and can easily be dispensed with.
If that is what is happening then his, call it flexibility, will be a boon at this moment at least, though it was just days ago people were implying how distraught he would be by Trump going as if he was a committed hard right populist. I'm getting whiplash.
Boris has always been a liberal. Its why I support him wholeheartedly.
The idea he is a Trumpian populist has always been nonsense.
Johnson is a performative politician, a clown rather than a serious thinker. He has some populist tendencies, more visible in his "journalism" than his politics, though at the dispatch box he's been toying with more populist themes to combat Starmer, with faint echoes of some of his colleagues more serious attacks on the legal system. For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
Looking at your boxes there, does Maggie Thatcher tick them?
Some of them aye, some of them no. What of it?
Well, reading your post struck me she is the very opposite of Boris, so should tick quite a few of them. Strategic. Respected. Consistent. Unyielding. Clear sense of direction and outcomes. The understanding good leadership is to set strong example. Where HY has written Boris chose Brexit as differential to obtain top job, it’s exactly what Maggie would never do.
I'll make it clear, I don't like Thatcher. But she largely succeeded on her own terms, which were external to her own personal ambition. I imagine I would have trusted her in a personal capacity, had I met her and had the need to entrust her with something.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
Its almost surprising really that Nixon is the only President to have resigned, except for the fact that eight Presidents have died in office.
I doubt that Biden will resign, but I feel that he has his ego sufficiently in check that if he were eg to get a dementia diagnosis (entirely possible at his age) that he would be self-aware enough to retire and hand over the reigns voluntarily. Trump wouldn't have, but Biden I suspect would be happy to be the first US President to resign voluntarily.
I had to read that a few times to work out what particle accelerators had to do with anything. Laura Kuenssberg writes weird tweets, there's often some kind of deeply strange abbreviation or bizarre flub in there somewhere.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
What makes her left wing?
She has a very moderate record. She's closer to the GOP's Collins than to eg Sanders in her voting record.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
What makes her left wing?
She has a very moderate record. She's closer to the GOP's Collins than to eg Sanders in her voting record.
She is far left of Collins and closer to Sanders ideologically than Biden, she has one of the most leftwing Senate voting records
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
I think she's careerist rather than left-wing or right-wing, she had an eye on a presidential run so she voted quite left in the Senate and tried to show a bit of leg on Medicare For All and the Green New Deal, but then also tried to skate back from them later in the primary to avoid losing moderates. Then she ended up with neither, because she's not very good at politics.
But I'm sure there are a lot of voters who would vote for Biden but not her, especially against a less polarizing opponent.
I suppose it's possible that she may be able to reinvent herself by 2024; She has Biden's team who seem to be very sharp, and she's good at delivering the lines people give her. But more likely I think she'll be a liability.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
I think she's careerist rather than left-wing or right-wing, she had an eye on a presidential run so she voted quite left in the Senate and tried to show a bit of leg on Medicare For All and the Green New Deal, but then also tried to skate back from them later in the primary to avoid losing moderates. Then she ended up with neither, because she's not very good at politics.
But I'm sure there are a lot of voters who would vote for Biden but not her, especially against a less polarizing opponent.
I suppose it's possible that she may be able to reinvent herself by 2024; She has Biden's team who seem to be very sharp, and she's good at delivering the lines people give her. But more likely I think she'll be a liability.
I think your analysis is spot on: she's not the bogeyman people think she is; she's certainly nowhere near 'the most socialist member of the Senate'. But, as you say, she's ambitious but simply not that great.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
I think she's careerist rather than left-wing or right-wing, she had an eye on a presidential run so she voted quite left in the Senate and tried to show a bit of leg on Medicare For All and the Green New Deal, but then also tried to skate back from them later in the primary to avoid losing moderates. Then she ended up with neither, because she's not very good at politics.
But I'm sure there are a lot of voters who would vote for Biden but not her, especially against a less polarizing opponent.
I suppose it's possible that she may be able to reinvent herself by 2024; She has Biden's team who seem to be very sharp, and she's good at delivering the lines people give her. But more likely I think she'll be a liability.
Sadly there's a constituency who won't vote for her because she's a woman. And the President is a man. How big that is I can't say, but I doubt she would have beaten Trump. America is not like the UK.
Must say referring to incumbent POTUS whose term lasts another two months "previous" is incredibly lame. Even for Boris.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
I think most reasonable people will understand it as a slip for 'preceding'; perhaps 'outgoing' would have been more felicitous. Unless he did it on purpose to make waves in the US media...
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
It is just a VERY dumb thing to say about ANY householder at 1600 Pennsylvania (!) Avenue.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
Because he'll ... do what to us? Not all of us quake in our boots at the thought of what Mr. Pennsylvania Avenue might do in a huff.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
The problem with that is that you can totally imagine that you'd look at the polling in 2023 and discover that Biden is a popular incumbent with wide appeal who would probably win, and Kamala is the next-in-line and would probably win the primary then lose the election. Biden doesn't want to be a bridge to the next Republican presidency, especially if the GOP put up Trump or a Trump mini-me with better powers of concentration.
Indeed, if I were American I would have voted for Biden over Trump but in 2024 if Harris was the candidate I might well vote for Haley or Pence over her, she is is far more leftwing than Biden or say Buttigieg who I might also vote for
What makes her left wing?
She has a very moderate record. She's closer to the GOP's Collins than to eg Sanders in her voting record.
She is far left of Collins and closer to Sanders ideologically than Biden, she has one of the most leftwing Senate voting records
Govtrack is a pretty misleading measure, because it solely looks at how many bipartisan bills you sponsored (and if you're running for President, how many is that?). 538 does a more interesting one, looking at how often you vote with your party.
On that measure there are basically five groups: hardcore Trump-luvvies, mainstream Republicans, genuine independents, mainstream Democrats, and practically Socialist.
There aren't many in the first or last group. Or, indeed, the middle, which seems to consist entirely of Collins, Sistema, Murkowski, and that chap from West Virginia.
Harris is a mainstream Democrat. An ambitious one, sure, who sought her party's nomination. But she is ultimately boring and uninteresting and - as EiT says - simply not that good.
I had to read that a few times to work out what particle accelerators had to do with anything. Laura Kuenssberg writes weird tweets, there's often some kind of deeply strange abbreviation or bizarre flub in there somewhere.
Whilst there has been much news about the firing of top level officials, replacement with Trump loyalists and the expectancy of more such shuffles, the reality is that the firings & rumoured next firings have been quite narrow in scope.
The Department of Defence, civilian intelligence agencies & the FBI
Why is Trump so keen to put loyalists in there? What is his problem with those organisations? 2+2 in this case does equal 4.
Comments
Just the constitution and the institutions of democracy.
For a "liberal", he surrounds himself with some pretty unliberal folk, which leaves a question mark over the depth of his commitment to that ideology. In fact, the unseriousness of his manner, his uncertain relationship with truth, and his chaotic personal life mark him out not as a man of any particular ideology, but a man of whimsy, a talented chancer.
I often ask myself the question of politicians: what would I trust them with? To look after a pile of my cash? To walk my partner safely home? The care of a child? To maintain their beliefs? To speak honestly about their own failings? to encapsulate an opponents' point of view honestly in arguing against it? My answers, for this prime minister, are in each case a definite no, never, no. That is not the answer profile I would expect of a liberal, or indeed a man committed to anything other than a hedonistic joyride though life.
No, Johnson isn't a populist. To be a populist he'd first have to give the slightest fuck about something -- anything -- that wasn't himself.
He is on track to sort out Covid and Brexit.
Good job we don't have Captain Hindsight and his motley crew running things!
👍
This means Trump needs 68.3% of the remaining ballot - assuming, of course, that every provisional "counts".
Seeing people whinge about how well we're doing about getting vaccines just goes to show what an amazing job this government is doing.
If we come out of lockdown next month, see care homes and over 85s get vaccinated then by Christmas we should have the worst of this horrid pandemic over before New Year. While much of the rest of the world will still be waiting their turn for the vaccine and seeing morgues overflowing in France etc while we celebrate Christmas.
Still people will whinge though. Some people aren't happy if they're not complaining, but if what you're complaining about is our vaccines then that's better than you complaining about bankruptcies and the lack of a vaccine.
We moderates need to be brave and stand firm for the best interests of Britain and it's people 👍
As far as I'm concerned once my grandparents have had the vaccine I'm much happier for life to get back to normal as fast as humanly possible. I haven't seen them since just after the new year (they went into isolation before lockdown and have never come out of it) and I miss them a lot.
I honestly couldn't care less about how much PR money is spent fighting antivax nonsense, it is money well spent. What I care about is it would be fantastic to see my grandparents again and give them a hug again. If a vaccine is possible before Christmas (or in the New Year) that makes that possible then I will be very emotional and happy for that and that matters more than anything else.
Simples.
I am still here thanks to Boris' inch-perfect handling of Covid, so mustn't grumble. There are however in excess of 50,000 people who can't make my claim.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/11/moderna-to-reveal-covid-vaccine-data-436113
https://www.azmirror.com/2020/11/10/an-arizona-ballot-recount-they-are-rare-nearly-impossible-to-trigger/
Though there are undoubtedly slightly more doubts about it than the Pfizer vaccine.
The recent upsurge in US infections has provided ‘events’ more quickly than predicted.
With due respect you sound like Boris and his 'almost normal Xmas' Yes its great news so far with the vaccine but your talk of we will celebrate Xmas while everyone else continues to suffer sounds over optimistic and from the Boris playbook.
PB: the home of linguistic expertise
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00661.htm
Over 85s are meant to be the second set to get it, my grandparents would fall in this category (I don't think they've done an over 90s category), I expect this will be around January.
The virus will obviously still be around for much longer and the risk of long covid etc means we should certainly take it seriously - I expect I'll still be wearing a facemask until the Spring - but the risks to society will be majorly reduced once the most vulnerable are vaccinated.
Dare I say, for Johnson's Conservative Government, this evening, both "rats in a sack" and "rats leaving the sinking ship" would seem to apply.
Honouring the democratic vote result shouldn’t be about siding with anyone. It should be the American, patriotic thing to do. As American as apple pie and cream on Sundays. Jack Daniels. Forward passes in rugby variant. Tom and Jerry (though with warning these days about racial tropes). Mickey Mouse. Mini Mouse. Hollywood. Flamingo Road. Picket fences etc etc
Because, despite so much that divides the great house of America, Religion, Race, Wealth, politics, one thing unites it all together, the thing they all believe in above everything else. And that is America itself. It’s plurality. That it is just so damn good at what it does.
Except taking one side or another is exactly how Trump has made it, going against him or not is the narrative his voters and lot of GOP have bought, placing huge pressure on the rest. Basically he still has the support to frighten them, bully them, they are still scared of him.
BUT.
Once the most vulnerable are protected, we can start loosening restrictions anyway.
She really, really, said that. Much maligned my arse.
Esp. for a guy who could be out of office BEFORE Trumpsky. (Not saying it will happen, just that it could.)
Boris cares about Boris above all else after all
Once the others have a vaccine to protect them, there is no longer a reason to be as restricted as we are now.
And if Boris had lost an election last week he would be "previous" by now already. Weird system the Americans have that Trump gets to linger on like a bad smell for so long afterwards but he's moving on and too right too.
Boris of course has every chance of being in office longer than both Trump and Biden, especially if the latter stands down in a few years to allow Harris a good run-up to the next Presidential election.
And the large majority of elected or appointed officials will follow the law.
I understand that there is a large number of people who believe, or half believe (in the absence of any real evidence) that the vote might not have been conducted fairly, but it is unlikely that they will do anything about it other than bring numbers of fruitless lawsuits to various courts.
I’ll agree that the Republican leadership has been largely craven, or even malign in not repudiating Trump’s baseless claims, and that Trump, if he had the right levers at his disposal, might engineer something along the lines of a coup.
It is just quite hard to see how he might do that.
All Trump can do is bully GOP leaders and elected representatives not to break ranks with him and to ensure the GOP remains his party when he leaves office in January, at which point he will aim to be King over the Water in exile for the party and default leader of the opposition to the Biden administration when he returns to Mar a Lago
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1326679385966047236?s=21
He can't help it, Boris Johnson, he just thinks in headlines.
It's what makes him so very effective, and, at the same time, so horribly ineffective.
As for Biden "standing down" about as likely as the Queen "standing down" for Prince Charles (the Prince of Wales NOT the toast of PB).
https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP/status/1326682544272666625?s=20
The government made a very good decision indeed, quite early on, to very significantly fund vaccine development and procurement. It was probably the only truly proactive action they took during the pandemic (unless you count discharging sick patients from hospitals in March); everything else was reaction, often a week or three late.
Scientists at pharmaceutical and biotech companies did indeed do brilliant jobs - with elements of luck, as with the Oxford vaccine, repurposing platforms already in fairly advanced development.
There’s been too much pandering to Trump’s sensitivities, and a bit of Johnsonian gaffery does its bit towards redressing the balance.
Thank you 🙂
Do you think Biden objects?
Trump is history, the world is moving on without him. If he doesn't understand that the rest of the democratic world which values democracy is making it abundantly clear where they stand. Biden won and we stand by democracy. This was as firm a signal he could make were he stands with Trump's attempts to usurp democracy.
I quite like Biden - I'd probably have voted for him if I were a US citizen - but his faculties are obviously diminished from what they were even four years ago (when he gave by far the best speech at the DNC), and sadly won't improve from here. To his credit, he recognizes this himself: 'I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else'. It would be a big surprise, and probably a bigger mistake, if he ran for a second term.
I doubt that Biden will resign, but I feel that he has his ego sufficiently in check that if he were eg to get a dementia diagnosis (entirely possible at his age) that he would be self-aware enough to retire and hand over the reigns voluntarily. Trump wouldn't have, but Biden I suspect would be happy to be the first US President to resign voluntarily.
Laura Kuenssberg writes weird tweets, there's often some kind of deeply strange abbreviation or bizarre flub in there somewhere.
She has a very moderate record. She's closer to the GOP's Collins than to eg Sanders in her voting record.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678
But I'm sure there are a lot of voters who would vote for Biden but not her, especially against a less polarizing opponent.
I suppose it's possible that she may be able to reinvent herself by 2024; She has Biden's team who seem to be very sharp, and she's good at delivering the lines people give her. But more likely I think she'll be a liability.
How big that is I can't say, but I doubt she would have beaten Trump.
America is not like the UK.
On that measure there are basically five groups: hardcore Trump-luvvies, mainstream Republicans, genuine independents, mainstream Democrats, and practically Socialist.
There aren't many in the first or last group. Or, indeed, the middle, which seems to consist entirely of Collins, Sistema, Murkowski, and that chap from West Virginia.
Harris is a mainstream Democrat. An ambitious one, sure, who sought her party's nomination. But she is ultimately boring and uninteresting and - as EiT says - simply not that good.
Whilst there has been much news about the firing of top level officials, replacement with Trump loyalists and the expectancy of more such shuffles, the reality is that the firings & rumoured next firings have been quite narrow in scope.
The Department of Defence, civilian intelligence agencies & the FBI
Why is Trump so keen to put loyalists in there? What is his problem with those organisations? 2+2 in this case does equal 4.