politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What would really make Corbyn invincible is doing better th
Options
Comments
-
Not John Oliver's best effort. Quite funny, but last week tonight standards in ripping the shit are rather high (and much better than th daily show).0
-
Just bear in mind Corbyn is not standing for president, his job as PM is to command a majority in the Commons and pass laws.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
He can't do that. It's not in his DNA.0 -
The claim of not a real Muslim is so predictable it is a given, along with lone wolf, mental health illness, poor disaffected, fear of backlash & nothing to do with Islam.williamglenn said:
You'll like this one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Didn't you hear it was all a terrible misunderstanding by two blokes called Arthur & his minder Terry...brokenwheel said:
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.
The lead article on Der Spiegel is headlined "Attacker from Ansbach: I never saw Mohammed praying"
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-ansbach-attentaeter-wurde-rambo-genannt-a-1104628.html0 -
Owen Jones speaking now.0
-
StrangeJonathan said:
Changing your mind is a good thing. It's called learning.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
When a Tory does it then your lot call it a massive humiliating U turn.
That is all.0 -
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.EPG said:
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.0 -
A lot of this is propaganda aimed at those who might want to be like them. They are insane, they have confused sexuality, they are Muslim-lite. It's all to demotivate, I thought that was obvious (but it's probably based in fact anyway).FrancisUrquhart said:
The claim of not a real Muslim is so predictable it is a given, along with lone wolf, mental health illness, poor disaffected, fear of backlash & nothing to do with Islam.williamglenn said:
You'll like this one.FrancisUrquhart said:
Didn't you hear it was all a terrible misunderstanding by two blokes called Arthur & his minder Terry...brokenwheel said:
They'll succeed at some point, only a matter of time.FrancisUrquhart said:RAF Marham Attacker Headbutted By Victim
http://news.sky.com/story/raf-marham-attacker-headbutted-by-victim-10512325
Good lad.
The lead article on Der Spiegel is headlined "Attacker from Ansbach: I never saw Mohammed praying"
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/anschlag-in-ansbach-attentaeter-wurde-rambo-genannt-a-1104628.html0 -
Apologies if this has been posted already, I think it raises a few valid points. http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/0
-
That is not entirely true. Sure, Hillary is winning big amongst middle-aged women and black voters, but Bernie absolutely dominated young voters who, regardless of poor turnout figures in normal cycles, are part of the core Dem demographic. Bernie also does well with Union types, another core Dem demo. Neither group is entryist.Thrak said:
They aren't the core, they are entryists.Speedy said:
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.Thrak said:
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.0 -
Smith was pitching to normal voters, not Labour party members. It was probably a mistake to do that.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
What Smith can deliver is an effective Parliamentary opposition. He will also engage away from his comfort zone, something Corbyn never does. The views Corbyn holds dear are at best irrelevant to most voters, at worst anathema to them.
https://twitter.com/gerryhassan/status/756100026401718272
0 -
He did lead by a tiny bit, until he had trouble with a "mexican" judge, and NeverTrump had a fit again about staging a coup at the convention.williamglenn said:
He did have his nose ahead briefly after securing the nomination before Hillary unleashed a barrage of negative advertising.AndyJS said:RealClearPolitics polling average — Trump ahead for the first time, by 0.2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Lets wait until after the Democratic convention, but so far the convention doesn't look very promising for Hillary.
In fact I think speakers are now avoiding mentioning Hillary to prevent hecklers from disrupting their speeches.0 -
FPT
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.Tim_B said:
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.Tim_B said:
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....brokenwheel said:
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...HYUFD said:Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger.
By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college.
It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.0 -
FrancisUrquhart said:
Not John Oliver's best effort. Quite funny, but last week tonight standards in ripping the shit are rather high (and much better than th daily show).
Even as an ABT, the relentlessly leftie mocking of the Talk Show hosts is grating rather than funny at this point. Trump is merely an excuse for all of these unfunny (or in Oliver's case, occasionally funny) Luvvies to go on a rant.0 -
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
The whole DNC email scandal has ripples spreading outwards. It appears the Federal Election Commission may get involved.0
-
I'm talking about these delegates trying to draw attention to themselves, not primary supporters.MTimT said:
That is not entirely true. Sure, Hillary is winning big amongst middle-aged women and black voters, but Bernie absolutely dominated young voters who, regardless of poor turnout figures in normal cycles, are part of the core Dem demographic. Bernie also does well with Union types, another core Dem demo. Neither group is entryist.Thrak said:
They aren't the core, they are entryists.Speedy said:
They got 46% in the primaries despite being rigged against them.Thrak said:
Look at Sanders' fans and see why, these people need to be faced down, they are anarchists and hard line leftists, they have no place in a mainstream party. Labour might have let these people take over but at least the Democrats haven't ceded power to them.Speedy said:
The problem is why in the name of God did they nominate the only person who can lose to Trump ?Thrak said:
Idiots, if they let Trump win they will be hounded until the end of their days.williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
And why in the name of everything holy did they rig the primaries in her favour ?
And why did she pick someone for VP with even less respect among her internal opponents than her ?
Why why why ?
Do you really think the Democrats can afford to lose even a small share of those people in a presidential election, and with so many 3rd parties ?
That's suicide, it's what destroyed the LD's, you can't eject your entire party voter core.0 -
Didn't expect to see fans of Last Week Tonight on PB!
And Corbyn has no chance with those in Nuneaton.
Anyway, goodnight. Hopefully America won't make the world an even more insane place by voting Trump in.0 -
I don't think that is the case.Danny565 said:
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves.EPG said:
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
Firstly: it is rare to have an absolute majority to take a marginal seat, often 40% will suffice.
Secondly: In a General Election many other issues and loyalties affect the way swing voters choose to swing, not just issues relating to Europe
Thirdly: Jezza is a lukewarm Remainer at best, but the reasons that he objects to Europe are very different to the concerns of the typical Nuneaton or NW Warks voter.0 -
Pilloried by who?HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.
Agnew was picked because he was a conservative, Nixon needed a conservative to placate those who voted Reagan, so he chose Agnew in the end even though he wasn't his first choice.0 -
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
I live about 20 miles from Nuneaton and can assure you that voters are not crying out for unlimited immigration, the scrapping of Trident and the abolition of the monarchy. Solidarity with Palestine and Cuba is not a pressing issue, while the IRA is generally pretty unpopular.Danny565 said:
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.EPG said:
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.
0 -
The Nuneatons of the U.S. vote GOP anyway. It is the prosperous suburbs the Democrats and Labour need to win to add to the inner cities not white working class small towns and rustbelt, ex industrial areas. UKIP or even the Tories are taking over such areas which are also Trump heartlandDanny565 said:
Except Nuneaton and North Warwickshire voted heavily to Leave, which meant the Labour "moderate" MPs are completely hopeless at appealing to those voters themselves. And the American equivalents of Nuneaton and North Warwickshire look good for voting Trump over Clinton.EPG said:
Neither candidate is electable, but one wants to purge the parliamentary party to remove the kind of people who could win Nuneaton and North Warwickshire as opposed to Islington, rendering it unelectable for much longer.Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Corbyn, while far from perfect, has more chance of appealing to the Nuneatons than the "international liberal" ideology of the Labour 'moderate' MPs.0 -
Now this is important, the FEC investigating it will make sure the scandal drags for a long time.Tim_B said:The whole DNC email scandal has ripples spreading outwards. It appears the Federal Election Commission may get involved.
But from a legal perspective how much can they do ?0 -
Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!0 -
I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.0
-
Yes to who then? Johnson?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!0 -
He is smart which is not quite the same thingTim_B said:
He is also highly intelligent.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouserSpeedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.0 -
So just like Ed M's umpteen billion relaunches then? Hilary = Ed? Or does she actually have policy? (well one better than free owls)Tim_B said:You won't believe this -
spokesman - Hillary sees her Thursday speech to the convention as a chance to reintroduce herself to the American people.
I've lost count how many this comes to.0 -
Close enough for any poor soul tbhSouthamObserver said:
I live about 20 miles from Nuneaton
0 -
Jill SteinFrancisUrquhart said:
Yes to who then? Johnson?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!0 -
Errr noThreeQuidder said:FPT
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.Tim_B said:
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.Tim_B said:
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....brokenwheel said:
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...HYUFD said:Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger.
By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college.
It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/638664/baltimore-mayor-stephanie-rawlingsblake-forgot-actually-gavel-democratic-convention
0 -
I also live 20 miles from Nuneaton.Pulpstar said:0 -
Telegraph — "Germany is in a dangerous state of denial about immigration, Islam and terrorism"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/25/germany-is-in-a-dangerous-state-of-denial-about-immigration-isla/0 -
Beyond citing one or more DNC members for riding a bicycle without lights, (and making the point that the penalty would have been worse had it been dark), probably not much.Speedy said:
Now this is important, the FEC investigating it will make sure the scandal drags for a long time.Tim_B said:The whole DNC email scandal has ripples spreading outwards. It appears the Federal Election Commission may get involved.
But from a legal perspective how much can they do ?
But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.0 -
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
Whoops:
"Syrian refugees resettled on remote Scottish island of Bute complain their new home is 'full of old people waiting to die'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/syrian-refugees-resettled-on-remote-scottish-island-of-bute-comp/0 -
Conservatives wanted Reagan not Agnew and Agnew was a Northeastern Republican not a sunbelt conservative like Reagan, liberals wanted Sanders or Warren this yearSpeedy said:
Pilloried by who?HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.
Agnew was picked because he was a conservative, Nixon needed a conservative to placate those who voted Reagan, so he chose Agnew in the end even though he wasn't his first choice.0 -
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes to who then? Johnson?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.0 -
Yes he resigned over a bribery scandal. Otherwise he was the godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
If I meant smart I would have said smart. He graduated from Wharton - that's intelligent.HYUFD said:
He is smart which is not quite the same thingTim_B said:
He is also highly intelligent.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouserSpeedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
I'd agree he is smart as well.0 -
Here's how Chris Mullin made the same point back in November in the NS:SouthamObserver said:
The PLP want to have the best chance of winning the highest possible number of seats and, unlike Corbyn, they speak to non-Labour voters. Election results and poll since Corbyn too charge have been abysmal, he is not collegiate, does not believe in the primacy of Parliament and has no interest in Labour getting into government. Apart from that - and the support for the IRA and Hamas - he's great :-Dbigjohnowls said:
If the PLP do not get behind Corbyn we will never know if he lost due to Labour divisions though will weSouthamObserver said:
It's just nonsense, of course, but saves having to engage with the reality, which is that Corbyn will lead Labour to electoral catastrophe. The good news is that once that happens he'll be off and the hard left will have no-one to replace him. Then the grown-ups can get on with the job of restoring sanity. It'll take years though.Jonathan said:Corbyn supporters would rather defeat Blairites* than Tories.
* Definition: a Labour voter who does not like St Jez.
"What he has to do, and he didn’t do this at the outset in his victory speech, is to address the middle ground. Labour, can’t hope to win an election, merely by mobilising the disaffected. We live in a country that has majority affluence. Labour has to bring with it a swathe of the fortunate as well as the less fortunate. You don’t have to win over every last Daily Mail reader, but you do have to have some."
The author of "A Very British Coup" has now given up on the prospect of Corbyn doing this, and writes:
"The clock cannot be turned back. One way or another Jeremy needs to be replaced by someone capable of offering strong leadership in both the party and the country. Labour needs to get its act together and fast. Failure to do so risks not merely defeat, but annihilation."
https://profilebooks.com/blog/cat/news/post/why-jeremy-corbyn-must-go-chris-mullin/#.V40Dj0_d_Qo.twitter
0 -
That going on for 4 days, plus the news the F.E.C. may get involved in investigating the scandal, plus all that has already happened.Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Hillary was supposed to use the convention to boost her favourables, like Trump and almost every other nominee in modern history did, that does not appear to be happening after all this.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week Hillary will have failed in doing A and B on my list of 3 things that every nominee needs to do in order to win.
A. Pick a VP that makes your internal opposition happy and in line.
B. Get a lead out of the conventions.
C. Win the debates.
As of right now, Hillary's last chances are the debates, and Trump self-destructing somehow.
That's not an insignificant chance, but Trump appears to have the upper hand until the debates.0 -
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?HYUFD said:
The godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.
0 -
The guy** being interviewed in the park commented that if these people gathering in the park for a protest are from the swing states then Clinton could be in trouble.fitalass said:
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
** Guy was wearing a Bernie Sanders T shirt0 -
Something like that!Tim_B said:
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?HYUFD said:
The godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/0 -
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
0 -
Sailing, mountain bike riding, horse riding, bird watching, photography, fishing, golfAndyJS said:Whoops:
"Syrian refugees resettled on remote Scottish island of Bute complain their new home is 'full of old people waiting to die'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/syrian-refugees-resettled-on-remote-scottish-island-of-bute-comp/
Loads of stuff to do on Bute !0 -
Most will be from San Francisco, Chicago, Boston and NYC and Burlington and Portland and Seattle which are in strongly Democratic states anyway. Hillary needs to win independents in the Philadelphia and DC and Cleveland and Denver suburbs. They are who she should pitch to on ThursdayMoses_ said:
The guy** being interviewed in the park commented that if these people gathering in the park for a protest are from the swing states then Clinton could be in trouble.fitalass said:
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
** Guy was wearing a Bernie Sanders T shirt0 -
And allepo is full of people of all ages likely to die....which would they prefer?AndyJS said:Whoops:
"Syrian refugees resettled on remote Scottish island of Bute complain their new home is 'full of old people waiting to die'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/syrian-refugees-resettled-on-remote-scottish-island-of-bute-comp/0 -
Should have just used "Spud"HYUFD said:
Something like that!Tim_B said:
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?HYUFD said:
The godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
I would be surprised - yup, even at this point - if Hillary doesn't get at least a couple of points 'bounce' after her speech on thursday. Don't forget these events are incredibly stage managed to showcase the nominee.Speedy said:
That going on for 4 days, plus the news the F.E.C. may get involved in investigating the scandal, plus all that has already happened.Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Hillary was supposed to use the convention to boost her favourables, like Trump and almost every other nominee in modern history did, that does not appear to be happening after all this.
If Trump is still in the lead by next week Hillary will have failed in doing A and B on my list of 3 things that every nominee needs to do in order to win.
A. Pick a VP that makes your internal opposition happy and in line.
B. Get a lead out of the conventions.
C. Win the debates.
As of right now, Hillary's last chances are the debates, and Trump self-destructing somehow.
That's not an insignificant chance, but Trump appears to have the upper hand until the debates.
Trump got about a 6 point bounce - much more among independents - after his speech and convention were savaged by the media. They will be much kinder to Hillary.
- should I have posted this anonymously?
0 -
California claiming our rightful place as the worlds six biggest economy shocker...0
-
Much of the Corbynite left had no respect whatsoever for the Labour Party until Corbyn took it over. Their loyalty is to the Corbyn cult and if by some miracle he were to be ousted they would cancel their short lived memberships.Thrak said:
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes to who then? Johnson?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.
0 -
Owen Smith is talking about what he would do, not Corbyn - he won't win, but his strategy is superior to Hillary Clinton and BSiESouthamObserver said:
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
Lowest turnout ever? odds on surely?0
-
Right now the convention speakers barely mention Hillary at her own convention in order not to be booed off stage.fitalass said:
Could the stay at homes decide this, any markets up on a really low turnout?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
So I think you may have a point, lets reduce turnout among democrats by 10% in every state Sanders won as a starting point.
But looking at the Green party nominee (Stein) as an alternative is not a bad option.0 -
Spiro Agnew, "the nattering nabobs of negativism". The most corrupt politician in Baltimore's corrupt history, who by speaking those words made William Safire famous.Tim_B said:
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?HYUFD said:
The godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
Wikileaks
US Director of National Intelligence: Both campaigns targetted for a variety of reasons https://t.co/9UBfZFGOSC0 -
Spent the weekend in Colorado (playong Cards Against Humanity) with a friend of mine who has just been appointed to the National Intelligence Council on the recommendation of the DNC. He's a lovely guy, and incredibly smart...but only 34 and that scares me!williamglenn said:
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/
0 -
Moses_ said:
Errr noThreeQuidder said:FPT
I know politics is struggling to separate the real from the parody, so please tell me this was a joke.Tim_B said:
- and the mayor forgets the gavel and has to run back onstage.Tim_B said:
It is opening up even as we type. It will be gaveled to order by the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Talk about pouring troubled waters on oil.....brokenwheel said:
The way the Democrat convention is going i'm not even sure there will be a Clinton bounce...HYUFD said:Trump has clearly got a bounce, Clinton needs one too. However I think Trump's will be bigger.
By this time next week I expect it to be neck and neck. I have long been of the view this will be a 1960, 1968, 2000, 2004 type election with just a percentage vote or so in the popular vote and just one big state, probably Pennsylvania, deciding the electoral college.
It is time to take the idea of a President Trump seriously and with his statement today that he may withdraw the U.S. from the WTO and his hardline immigration policy that would mark a huge shift towards protectionism and nationalism in the world's largest superpower and be an even more dramatic change than BREXIT, which was also a shift in the same direction.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/638664/baltimore-mayor-stephanie-rawlingsblake-forgot-actually-gavel-democratic-convention
0 -
He is intelligent but he is not in Nixon or Clinton's league but then almost no president has been since WW2Tim_B said:
If I meant smart I would have said smart. He graduated from Wharton - that's intelligent.HYUFD said:
He is smart which is not quite the same thingTim_B said:
He is also highly intelligent.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouserSpeedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
I'd agree he is smart as well.0 -
Don't they always? Ambassadorships are common, I believe. It's a disgrace - at least a knighthood doesn't really mean much.williamglenn said:
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
0 -
On such things careers are lost!Moses_ said:
Should have just used "Spud"HYUFD said:
Something like that!Tim_B said:
- he made him an offer he couldn't spell?HYUFD said:
The godfather of Dan QuayleTim_B said:
Spiro Agnew - a man whose contribution to history was teaching America the meaning of 'Nolo Contendere'.HYUFD said:
Are you kidding? Nixon was pilloried for picking Spiro Agnew, Humphrey did not have that major a problem with MuskieSpeedy said:
I don't remember Nixon having that kind of trouble with his VP and his Convention in 1968 though.HYUFD said:
Trump is not Nixon, Hillary is. Nixon also lost a bruising primary battle to Reagan in 1968 and like Sanders, Reagan was more popular with the party base than the nominee. Nixon, like Hillary, had also narrowly lost a presidential campaign eight years earlier to a more charismatic candidate and Nixon would probably have lost to Bobby Kennedy had he been his opponent and not Humphrey just as Hillary would probably have lost to Rubio had he been her opponent not Trump. Hillary is dislikeable but ruthless and highly intelligent like Nixon, Trump is a populist rabble rouser.Speedy said:
It's not unprecedented, in modern times it happened once.Moses_ said:
That surely has to be unprecedented at a nomination convention. If their own supporters can't get behind the nominee then what chance the country as a whole voting for a Clinton presidency?williamglenn said:The DNC live stream is unbelievable.
Speaker - "We are here to nominate Hillary Clinton..."
Crowd - "Booooooo!"
The 1968 Democratic Convention.
The primaries were rigged in favour of Humphrey and the delegates rioted when he was nominated, it was the last time until today that the legitimacy of the nominee was questioned.
The division led to a spectacular election loss for the Democrats and a victory for Nixon.
Sometimes history does repeat itself like a farce the second time.
HYUFD would love the Trump=Nixon, Hillary=Humphrey comparison.
The one similarity Trump has to Nixon is his convention speech, which with its focus on law and order and national security was very similar to that Nixon gave in 1968. Otherwise Trump is Wallace and this election is really Nixon v Wallace
Humphrey did.0 -
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.SouthamObserver said:
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.williamglenn said:
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 20110 -
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
You may have a point, but it's hard to see where Corbyn and Benn might disagree. Corbyn is basically stuck in 1984.Wulfrun_Phil said:
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.SouthamObserver said:
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
0 -
TBF Tuttle sold car parts not used cars!Tim_B said:
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.williamglenn said:
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
Much more impressive than Barzan - as a Pilgrim I get to meet them all. Barzan's just a merchant banker
0 -
Do you think he would be taking the same tack if he was say facing Blair ?kle4 said:
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Doubt it - whereas we know Jez would be identical. Most politicians in fact modulate their position vis a vis their opponent, Jez is the exception that proves the rule here.0 -
Do the Corbyn left respec their party? hmmm? not so sure.Thrak said:
They are most likely Green voters, imagine a party conference that allows that sort of entryism.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes to who then? Johnson?Moses_ said:Sky news in Philly
Delegates stating they will never vote for Clinton. Sign held up in front of National TV
"No to Trump, No to Clinton"
Crypes!
Trying to follow this on a Dem blog and people very angry at these privileged (mostly) young, (mostly) white (mostly) men chanting over people who deserve respect, such as a black speaker talking about civil rights and such. At least the Corbynite left has some respect for their own party, these people are just arrogant and self obsessed.0 -
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.nunu said:
we forget how conservative America is.Tim_B said:I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
0 -
I was being kind to Tuttle - it's an exclusive group.Charles said:
TBF Tuttle sold car parts not used cars!Tim_B said:
One of the lesser known and less pleasant aspects of presidential politics is that cushy jobs are always handed out to big donors by the winner. Top of the list is - Ambassador to the Court of St James.williamglenn said:
There's another angle that could have legs - evidence that Clinton was planning to hand out cushy jobs for the donors.Tim_B said:But Trump will be on the road all week banging away at this, and the main stream media now has to cover the story, so it will run for a while. It just plays completely into the Trump - Sanders 'rigged system' claim. We now know for a fact it WAS rigged. That is the major takeaway from this.
I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like “President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/
When I last went to the US Embassy in London in 2005 the then ambassador was a former used car salesman from California.
Matthew Barzun. Matthew Winthrop Barzun (born October 23, 1970) is the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. He is a business executive who is known for his work with CNET Networks and for his volunteer work on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011
Much more impressive than Barzan - as a Pilgrim I get to meet them all. Barzan's just a merchant banker0 -
I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?0
-
Alec Tyson
Views of Clinton and Sanders primary supporters on the issues: https://t.co/r4Pna6BgnK #DemsInPhilly #DemConvention https://t.co/3Ftdjmxdl80 -
Like LabourRichard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
? 0 -
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
Jim Gilmore vs Corey Booker?Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
OH poll
Trump 42, HRC 39
Two candidates only
Trump 45, HRC 450 -
You want to be careful. Farage might win Thanet, and then where might we be?Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
I know but many Democrats are very conservative aswell.Tim_B said:
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.nunu said:
we forget how conservative America is.Tim_B said:I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
Nobody is talking about "blue dawg Democrats" this year.0 -
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?Richard_Nabavi said:
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
I was saying Corbyn does modulate his position though. He sticks to a line more than most, but it's not cast iron, he is, when he feels it necessary, willing to talk in meaningless cliche, to obfuscate, to modulate. The only difference is the level at which he feels he needs to do so, is willing to do so. That makes him different, but only by degree, not by class.Pulpstar said:
Do you think he would be taking the same tack if he was say facing Blair ?kle4 said:
Does he? It is alleged he has modulated his views on at the least the EU and some other topics in order not to stir things up too much. He's more stubborn than most politicians, but in the last year he's shown a certain level of canniness as well.Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.
Doubt it - whereas we know Jez would be identical. Most politicians in fact modulate their position vis a vis their opponent, Jez is the exception that proves the rule here.
0 -
If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.Tim_B said:
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.nunu said:
we forget how conservative America is.Tim_B said:I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.0 -
But what if they win an additional 10-12 seats?Jonathan said:
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?Richard_Nabavi said:
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
Not that many conservative Dems any more. Obama proved to be the coup de grace on them.nunu said:
I know but many Democrats are very conservative aswell.Tim_B said:
You're missing the point - it's how insecure fearful and threatened America is. Gun ownership is not a liberal or conservative thing - BOTH sides have them.nunu said:
we forget how conservative America is.Tim_B said:I have CNN, MsNBC, Fox Business and Fox News on my screen. The one thing that strikes between the eyes is how many NRA commercials are showing during DNC coverage.
Nobody is talking about "blue dawg Democrats" this year.
Blue dog Democrats are mainly a Southern thing.0 -
Well the media verdict for Day 1 is in:
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/757683629342457861
https://twitter.com/DaviSusan/status/7576908680694415360 -
Look, someone needs to go back and whisper into Daves ear what majority govt would be like. Dave can then take appropriate steps.Richard_Nabavi said:
But what if they win an additional 10-12 seats?Jonathan said:
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?Richard_Nabavi said:
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
Just get whoever spoke to Ed to speak to Dave instead. The Davestone should do it.0 -
To be safe, I'd recommend going back to where this all began:Jonathan said:
All we need is the Tories to lose 10-12 seats and all would be good. Andrea who?Richard_Nabavi said:
That would be risky, we might end up with Andrea Leadsom as PM...Jonathan said:
Can we also have a rerun of UK politics, rebooting 1 Jan 2015Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/7480885690639319040 -
Can I second that suggestion.Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0 -
Brits don't miss that at all, but they see that it's a completely spurious argument. How do they know that? Because (a) it doesn't apply in the places where the vast majority of Americans live, and no-one using that argument says that gun licences should be available only where first responders might take 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, (b) if that were a genuine argument, no-one in the US would defend the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons, which have zero self-defence application, and (c) just look at the gun homicide, accident and suicide figures, which completely swamp any such semi-legitimate argument, and weep.MTimT said:If you live in deep country where it takes law enforcement or first responders 20-30 minutes to respond to a 911, you bet you want a gun somewhere in the house. I think this is an aspect of gun ownership that most Brits miss.
Sure, most Americans no longer live in such an environment, but a fair number do, and a very much larger number are no more than one or two generations away from that.
0 -
Fun fact.
Although I didn't win the PB competition, which was all four competitors, I did come closest to guessing Jeremy's share.0 -
When I wrote that I was mindful that even Chris Mullin thinks that Corbyn must go. He was about as close to Tony Benn as you could get.SouthamObserver said:
You may have a point, but it's hard to see where Corbyn and Benn might disagree. Corbyn is basically stuck in 1984.Wulfrun_Phil said:
That flatters Corbyn. If Benn were still alive, it's far from a given that he would be backing Corbyn now.SouthamObserver said:
I doubt a majority of Labour members would have been keen on Smith's views on Trident, immigration and patriotism. They were very Old Labour. This contest is basically Healey v Benn all over again!Pulpstar said:
Owen Smith will say whatever his audience wants to hear. Jezza OTOH sticks to his principles !Danny565 said:
Yes - and I do think he's a rather good media performer. Fluent, clear answers to questions. Which atleast puts him a step above the Liz Kendalls and Tristram Hunts of the world, who not only had the wrong principles, they were uncharismatic and utterly useless at even giving a decent TV appearance.bigjohnowls said:Smith doing well on Newsnight
Agree with him on MND, NHS, taxes, immigration.
But I just don't trust him to not change his mind again like he has on MND, NHS private sector involvement and immigration.
However, I'm still yet to be convinced that Smith (and more importantly, the many New Labour MPs who WOULD play an influential part if he wins the leadership) actually has a vague clue how to appeal to the public. As Hillary Clinton is showing, and the Remain campaign and Scottish Labour certainly showed, the Establishment/Status Quo politicians are proving pretty bad at actually winning elections right now.
Much as Southam Observer may scoff, my head right now is still saying Corbyn is actually the more electable candidate -- my mind's still open, but I'll need some sign that Smith is not just going to model his strategy on the Remain Campaign to be convinced.0 -
I must say, when I posted earlier that I thought the DNC convention was looking as though it would be a shambles, I hadn't expected that it would be a shambles on this Trumpesque, larger-than-life, scale.0
-
Please no, I can't handle another GOP debate, 12 were enough.fitalass said:
Can I second that suggestion.Richard_Nabavi said:I have a suggestion: perhaps the RNC and DNC should just agree that the whole thing has been a nightmare, and that they should just start the primaries all over again with completely new slate of candidates?
0
This discussion has been closed.