politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph does a sting on the Trump campaign and finds tha
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph does a sting on the Trump campaign and finds that it’ll accept foreign donation
Exclusive investigation in Telegraph : Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal https://t.co/1mjGOhco8j
Comments
-
first unlike Donald who's as dead as a duck0
-
Second0
-
Did the Guardian topple Bush ?0
-
What happened to the Ukip thread? That looked interesting.0
-
Oi! My "first" disappeared.
I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!0 -
Just noticed that DJ Dave Cash has died. I used to listen to him a fair bit.
He was only 74.
RIP .0 -
sorry about Trumping you. I suspect it may reappear when the thread is reposted...foxinsoxuk said:Oi! My "first" disappeared.
I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!0 -
How totally Trump. A sane politician would have gone the obvious way round this - the Clinton Foundation exists for a reason....0
-
But Wikileaks.....0
-
I think Trump is done anyway. Americans might not appreciate foreign intervention by the Telegraph. It might not be as bad as the Guardian letters in Ohio, but still maybe not as big of a deal as it looks on the face of it.0
-
-
fpt
Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?0 -
I'd be really worried about you if you could raise even a semi in excitement over Donald TrumpSeanT said:Yawn.
No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.0 -
-
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.0 -
What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!0 -
I don't think he can do anything by resigning.TOPPING said:fpt
Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?0 -
Apparently he's a really nice, loyal, and charming guy, who people adore.TOPPING said:fpt
Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?
Obviously his ex wife might disagree.0 -
Hahaha. Too funny. Not that his core supporters will be moved by it or anything else.0
-
In two weeks Farage will be back, again.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.0 -
There is no point OGH posting a PB Trumpton trolling thread at this time of night.
The Trumptons are mostly on the Morning Shift. You have to be up with the lark to troll them.0 -
foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
The more interesting question is how long they will be leader for.
How many hours?
0 -
Who can resist the Donald's tiny hands...TheScreamingEagles said:
I'd be really worried about you if you could raise even a semi in excitement over Donald TrumpSeanT said:Yawn.
No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.0 -
He kept his word about opposing Heathrow expansion. Incidentally, the problem politically with Heathrow expansion locally is not *this* expansion, so much as the utter certainty that the owners are lying when they say this is absolutely their last request for an expansion.TOPPING said:fpt
Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?
Over the years they have tried this "this is the last expansion"... for every single expansion! Strangely no one believes them anymore.0 -
SeanT said:
Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
UKIP. Set up to destroy the Tories. Ends up destroying Labour.
0 -
They are going to ask the Belgians one more time...
@JustinTrudeau: I spoke with @eucopresident Tusk today - we agree that the EU & its members should continue to work towards the Summit on Thursday. #CETA0 -
FPT:
Quite.SeanT said:
Brexit raises the chance of a swift 2nd indyref to 30%. But it reduces the chances of its being won to 5%.Mortimer said:
Restaurant meetings with junior ministers are the way forward for foreign policy are they?scotslass said:Carlotta
And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.
I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.
The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.
SNP have been, along with other parties, totally sidelined by Brexit and reaction to it.
The Tory party is the only party in town.
Whilst also allowing Tories to appear firmly as the party of the Union.
Just another reason why Leave was the optimal result for the Tory party as well as the country.0 -
-
If voters don't care that Donald Trump on his own account grabs women by the pussy, they're not going to care about illegal foreign donations.0
-
MarkHopkins said:foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
The more interesting question is how long they will be leader for.
How many hours?
0 -
-
Talking of Kipper candidates.. Has this been posted..
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ukip-leadership-candidate-admits-mistake-of-claiming-gay-donkey-raped-his-horse/ar-AAjkH8e?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp0 -
SeanT said:
Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
No, as UKIP's future depends entirely on whether it is hard or soft Brexit, if the former they will cease to exist, if more the latter they will continue. Who holds the position of the most powerful person on earth is rather more important and will also have some impact on post Brexit UK given Hillary backed Remain and Trump backed Brexit. Mind you this story sounds like tomorrow's fish and chip paper, not much different to what Hilary has done before and I doubt it will make much headway in the US beyond maybe the liberal mediaSeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.0 -
And again, so what if he opposes it? Can he do anything apart from tick the Richmond Constituency box?Malmesbury said:
He kept his word about opposing Heathrow expansion. Incidentally, the problem politically with Heathrow expansion locally is not *this* expansion, so much as the utter certainty that the owners are lying when they say this is absolutely their last request for an expansion.TOPPING said:fpt
Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?
Over the years they have tried this "this is the last expansion"... for every single expansion! Strangely no one believes them anymore.0 -
Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
But, personality clashes can destroy the party.0 -
If only nations acted solely according to their interests.rcs1000 said:
Nations have interests, not friends.HYUFD said:What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!0 -
FPT
But how similar is early voting in the US to postal voting in the UK? As I understand it back in the past it used to be similar to ours with a lot of what they call "situational" voters (elderly, students, armed forces). Since its rapid expansion in the 2000s it has become much more heavily used by the well-educated and those with higher socio-economic status, or to use our equivalent "metropolitans".rcs1000 said:
Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.HYUFD said:
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any differentJackW said:
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.HYUFD said:Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....0 -
ha ha ha haHYUFD said:What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!
So the telegraph should tiny handed racist groper Trump for UK trade purposes???
ha ha ha0 -
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:0 -
Yes one of the problems with PB is that whatever is put in front of certain posters they deem it good for Trump.brokenwheel said:FPT
But how similar is early voting in the US to postal voting in the UK? As I understand it back in the past it used to be similar to ours with a lot of what they call "situational" voters (elderly, students, armed forces). Since its rapid expansion in the 2000s it has become much more heavily used by the well-educated and those with higher socio-economic status, or to use our equivalent "metropolitans".rcs1000 said:
Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.HYUFD said:
The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any differentJackW said:
The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.HYUFD said:Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.
Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats
Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....
Yeah right ....0 -
Just checked, this Telegraph Trump story getting zero coverage on either ABC or Fox website, move along please, nothing to see here0
-
Those are bad figures for College grads. Trumpism doesn't seem to suit them. It is perhaps not surprising that Republican white collar workers are not keen on bringing down the establishment. It is largely them!619 said:0 -
The first shall not last.foxinsoxuk said:Oi! My "first" disappeared.
I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!0 -
Um....HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.
Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.0 -
An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.
Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.
Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.
Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.0 -
Lolz, Plato told us it was just Hillary who was a corporate shill.0
-
-
That would be to admit that they serve no purpose other than acting as a pressure group to make sure Brexit happens. It would be a suicidal strategy in the long term unless Brexit really does get derailed.chestnut said:An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.
Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.
Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.
Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.0 -
I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.Sean_F said:
Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
But, personality clashes can destroy the party.
Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.
0 -
What is the purpose of UKIP?williamglenn said:
That would be to admit that they serve no purpose other than acting as a pressure group to make sure Brexit happens. It would be a suicidal strategy in the long term unless Brexit really does get derailed.chestnut said:An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.
Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.
Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.
Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.0 -
I don't think so. Any tendency to offer sensible policy by Evans or for that matter Nuttall will be more than enough for them to be publicly knifed by the lunatic fringe.MarkHopkins said:SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
UKIP. Set up to destroy the Tories. Ends up destroying Labour.0 -
FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41
http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html0 -
I wouldn't write off labour under Corbyn that quickly. The UKIP threat would be the same, if not worse, were labour to be lead by Cooper, Burnham or Owen Smith. UKIP are associated with Brexit, and Brexit is already happening. So what are UKIP for? At least labour under Corbyn can explain what it is for.SeanT said:
Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
I suspect the task will be too much for whoever leads UKIP, particularly given the hotchpotch of opinions within the party.0 -
Early reports are Trump disavowed this PAC months ago so looks like little to the story anyway0
-
oof. decent for OH, better for PA than other polls, but FL and NC would kill him anywayJackW said:FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41
http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html0 -
Doesn't the existence of the SNP depend on them perpetually failing in their main aim? If they ever achieve it they just become Scottish Labour, Scottish New Labour or Scottish Tories depending on policy.
UKIP achieved their aim in less than two decades. Where now once Brexit is complete?0 -
I think the value is with a big Clinton victory now. I am taking a portfolio approach and backing her to win outright, in various handicap markets and in states that are or could become competitive I am bscking her in alaska arizona colorado Georgia florida indiana kansas iowa missouri nevada Montana new Hampshire ohio north and south carolina ohio pennslyvania south dakota texas.
Dont suppose they will all win but I reckon on at least 10 of the 19.0 -
Broadly in the ball park. OH very tight, PA looks a tad low for Clinton and NC a tad high.619 said:
oof. decent for OH, better for PA than other polls, but FL and NC would kill him anywayJackW said:FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41
http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html0 -
Suzanne Evans is opposed by both Farage and Banks, so she is dead in the water. A shame, since she comes across well in the media, although as a former Home Counties Tory councillor I am not sure she is ideally positioned to go after wwc labour voters. I always thought Nuttall was the better bet - although I am not sure how well he is in with the ruling duo, either?tyson said:
I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.Sean_F said:
Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
But, personality clashes can destroy the party.
Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.0 -
My view, based on not very much, is that the various Romeny sates will fall in two blocks. Either everything in a block will go or they will all stay. Clinton has posted big gains in red states, but the margins mean she has to post yuge gains to take them. If she posts yuge gains she sweeps them all, if not then they all stand together.gettingbetter said:I think the value is with a big Clinton victory now. I am taking a portfolio approach and backing her to win outright, in various handicap markets and in states that are or could become competitive I am bscking her in alaska arizona colorado Georgia florida indiana kansas iowa missouri nevada Montana new Hampshire ohio north and south carolina ohio pennslyvania south dakota texas.
Dont suppose they will all win but I reckon on at least 10 of the 19.0 -
-
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:0 -
On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.0
-
Nuttall wanted to close down the NHS. A northern accent alone will not be enough. UKIP's leaders and members need to leave their comfort zone. There's little indication they will so far.SeanT said:
I can see a sensible, disciplined, Suzanne Evans-led UKIP winning 20% of the vote in England and Wales in 2020. That would doom Labour to permanent irrelevance.Sean_F said:
Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
But, personality clashes can destroy the party.
Eventually this UKIP might actually win a general election.
The party is at a critical stage. They could disappear in the next two years, or become England's SNP.
0 -
Yes, it looks like it is pretty much a non-storyRichard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
0 -
The SNP turned left and spent 20 years building a support base.SeanT said:
Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
0 -
White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads619 said:
Um....HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.
Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.0 -
Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
0 -
A local golf driving range has Clinton and Trump targets up at the moment.TheScreamingEagles said:
At the general election they had Cameron, Miliband, Farage and Clegg. No Sturgeon or Bennett which I found amusing.0 -
I thought that AA women has the highest turnout of any US demographic, and polls strongly for Clinton.nunu said:
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
Last time the Republicans needed more than just white voters to win, yet there's been four years of demographic change trending away from whites since then. Trump has lost the more educated ones and taken a hit amongst women generally. The only straw he can clutch is hoping for a higher than usual turnout amongst wwc (male) voters (which he would need in the swing states, rather than those republicans always win), which doesn't seem much to set against all his handicaps both fundamental and self-inflicted.0 -
not among registered voters they definitely are not. The minor gains from wwc are offset by that massive margin difference. And dont forget, Romney LOST with a much bigger white margin!HYUFD said:
White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads619 said:
Um....HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.
Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.0 -
His recent speech looks to be an attack on the UKIP NEC and Aaron Banks.IanB2 said:
Suzanne Evans is opposed by both Farage and Banks, so she is dead in the water. A shame, since she comes across well in the media, although as a former Home Counties Tory councillor I am not sure she is ideally positioned to go after wwc labour voters. I always thought Nuttall was the better bet - although I am not sure how well he is in with the ruling duo, either?tyson said:
I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.Sean_F said:
Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.SeanT said:Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?
UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.
Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.
But, personality clashes can destroy the party.
Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/ukip-can-have-a-bright-future-but-only-by-uniting-and-turning-it/amp/?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb
Both targets ripe for taking down (though the latter is expensive), but could easily leed to more infighting.0 -
Also, compared to the documented activities of the Clinton Foundation, this fades into insignificance.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
0 -
Yeah, it will be re-published in the anti-Trump press and ignored by the pro-Trump press, but it is feeble anyway. Some guy was told he'd had influence if he gave a lot of dosh to an organisation which (in theory at least) has zero contact with the Trump campaign.HaroldO said:
Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
There are plenty of reasons for thinking Trump will lose badly, but this isn't one of them.0 -
This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smallernunu said:
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct240 -
I thought Oprah's intervention was quite effective.IanB2 said:
I thought that AA women has the highest turnout of any US demographic, and polls strongly for Clinton.nunu said:
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/oprah-winfrey-on-clinton-230148
“I hear this all the time. You get into conversations — and there’s not a person in this room who hasn’t been in this same conversation — where people say, ‘I just don’t know if I like her.’”
“She’s not coming over to your house! You don’t have to like her,” she said. “You don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. Do you like the country? Do you like freedom and liberty? Do you like this country? OK. Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue?”0 -
SeanT said :
"Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?"
Actually, the election also involves, I believe, all the representatives and one third of the senators. Since the Republicans now control both houses it's critical to Clinton to address this situation. That appears to be what she is now doing.0 -
Yes, that too.Tim_B said:
Also, compared to the documented activities of the Clinton Foundation, this fades into insignificance.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
0 -
The Brexit Club by Owen Bennett is well worth a read.
The Leave campaigns were even more shambolic than I thought. The strategies used by the various campaigns are quite interesting. The childish fighting is almost unbelievable.
I would like to read something similar which focuses on the Remain campaign.0 -
I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, it will be re-published in the anti-Trump press and ignored by the pro-Trump press, but it is feeble anyway. Some guy was told he'd had influence if he gave a lot of dosh to an organisation which (in theory at least) has zero contact with the Trump campaign.HaroldO said:
Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.
There are plenty of reasons for thinking Trump will lose badly, but this isn't one of them.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.0 -
And started out as a centre-right Scottish alternative to the Tories, who they replaced first in areas like Angus, enabling them to mop up all the anti-Labour votes. UKIP would need to do the same with Tory voters in the north, as the LibDems did a generation back in the big northern cities.SouthamObserver said:
The SNP turned left and spent 20 years building a support base.SeanT said:
Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.foxinsoxuk said:
Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.SeanT said:BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.
It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.
If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.
They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.
Aside from its disfunctional organisation and disfunctional personalities, UKIP is critically handicapped by having been tied to one single issue which is likely now to fade in importance.
Banks must be weighing up whether using his huge leave.EU database to try and start from scratch along the lines of the Italian Cinque Stelle would be a better bet. Now surely that is worth a thread header?0 -
There were not more white college graduates voting than white working class voters in 2012 and white working class turnout will be up this year, Romney lost because of the high African American turnout in 2012 which will not be repeated this year619 said:
not among registered voters they definitely are not. The minor gains from wwc are offset by that massive margin difference. And dont forget, Romney LOST with a much bigger white margin!HYUFD said:
White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads619 said:
Um....HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.
Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.0 -
From a newspaper owned by a Trump donor who endorsed him...
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/7906647933465395200 -
Reading the Amazon reviews and your comment, it looks like this confirms some of the chaotic anecdotes being shared in here in the runup to the vote, and my feeling that, had the result gone the other way, there would have been no shortage of worthy analysis demonstrating why leave deserved to lose. Both campaigns were appalling and they both deserved to lose.MP_SE said:The Brexit Club by Owen Bennett is well worth a read.
The Leave campaigns were even more shambolic than I thought. The strategies used by the various campaigns are quite interesting. The childish fighting is almost unbelievable.
I would like to read something similar which focuses on the Remain campaign.0 -
The fact that the main English nationalist party is called UKIP encapsulates every single political and constitutional problem we have in this country.IanB2 said:Aside from its disfunctional organisation and disfunctional personalities, UKIP is critically handicapped by having been tied to one single issue which is likely now to fade in importance.
0 -
Where are the breakdown in white voting I can't see it.HYUFD said:
This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smallernunu said:
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct240 -
I'm reading that again as I do each Presidential election, I always find new parallels. Some things change but a lot remains the same, and US politics and campaigning has always been a dirty business.HaroldO said:I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.
0 -
You need platinum access to see Rasmussen demographic info. It is one of the many reasons they are a joke.nunu said:
Where are the breakdown in white voting I can't see it.HYUFD said:
This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smallernunu said:
How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.HYUFD said:
So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable619 said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct240 -
I've only been through it twice as it turns into a hard read at times, especially the machinations at the Dem conference. The parliamentary proceedings group discussion they have (the one transcribed from tape) is probably both the most interesting, and dullest, back and forth I have ever read.glw said:
I'm reading that again as I do each Presidential election, I always find new parallels. Some things change but a lot remains the same, and US politics and campaigning has always been a dirty business.HaroldO said:I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.
It feels self indulgent at times, but he really gets outside the bubble in a way that the morons at the Canary only wish they could. Rather than wiring their click bait bullshit.0
