Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
The status quo (Obama) would have won comfortably...
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
Trump got more minorities than Romney despite the accusations of racism against him.
I was seriously worried about the spreads when Virginia looked likely to fall at one point.
I think that many people lost tons of money on the Spreads, but some lucky enough who caught the Trump wave after Tampa and Virginia made fortunes.
The Spreads though are very dangerous for the average bettor.
Yeah, I lost a packet on the spreads, largely because I was too slow to close off. In fact I even compounded the error when there was comment here that Florida was going well for Hillary - I should have listened more to you!
I did manage to yank my position on BF over far enough to end up OK. Depending on how the last bets come in, I might be in a small profit or a manageable loss. Oh well.
I am glad you managed to avoid the worst, Mr. Navabi. You said yesterday that you were in shirt-losing territory if Clinton went below 250 EC votes.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
NYT have now included the Milford result that broke hours ago on local news/social media. (same thing happened with Keene, careful watching of local reports would have shown a certain win a long time ago, as these were declared 10/11 hours ago) This means officially just two tiny towns which will break approximately 50/50 Trump/Clinton but need to go 95/5 to Trump for him to win.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
What will represent success or failure for you and your family in terms of a Trump Administration ?
I ask because Trump promised the sun, the moon and the stars this morning without saying anything of substance. It was a speech channelling Reagan and Keynes at the same time and to this observer unachievable.
Some or all of the coalition who voted Trump yesterday are going to be disappointed in the next 3-4 years and I just wonder where your "red lines" are or will be.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
The status quo (Obama) would have won comfortably...
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Arranged from left to right Blair is not extreme left. Relatively more left-wing than other PMs, yes. But that doesn't equal extreme left.
Do you know what the phrase "most extreme" means? He is literally the furthest left wing election winner we have ever had in my whole lifetime. In the last 40 years.
If she does, she should acknowledge that people voted for change than continuity and she should have focused on her policies with a positive message, also of course she should say to women to keep the dream of breaking the glass ceiling alive but they have to earn it.
The most important thing is that she has to warn people not to repeat the mistakes of the democratic campaign and that they should learn from them.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
Both Putin and Erdogan were elected, and continue to be elected.
One thing about Trump is that he owes favours to NO-ONE. He won despite the GOP hierarchy. He can tell Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan what to do and they will do it.
That is the most important thing.
Trump is de-facto the first independent President. It could have been Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan in 1992, one had the money the other the charisma but only Trump had both.
Yet he will have to deal with both the Senate and Congress because even the power of POTUS is constrained. Sean Hannity, who is very happy with the result, was calling for Ryan to be ousted and a more clearly pro-Trump Speaker.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
Since 1976, no Labour politician other than Tony Blair has won an election. He's on the left by default. But all of the failed attempts are left of him: Callaghan (1979) by a little, Foot (1983) by more, Kinnock (1987, 1992) by a little, Brown (2010) and Ed Miliband (2015) also a little.
My issue is with Blair being labelled 'extreme left', not that he is relatively more left wing than Thatcher etc.
Maybe you want to go back and read the original post again. It didn't say what you seem to think it said.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
What will represent success or failure for you and your family in terms of a Trump Administration ?
I ask because Trump promised the sun, the moon and the stars this morning without saying anything of substance. It was a speech channelling Reagan and Keynes at the same time and to this observer unachievable.
Some or all of the coalition who voted Trump yesterday are going to be disappointed in the next 3-4 years and I just wonder where your "red lines" are or will be.
Success will be any improvement in the functioning of DC, and the end of the logjam.
If she does, she should acknowledge that people voted for change than continuity and she should have focused on her policies with a positive message, also of course she should say to women to keep the dream of breaking the glass ceiling alive but they have to earn it.
The most important thing is that she has to warn people not to repeat the mistakes of the democratic campaign and that they should learn from them.
A big message to the DNC too, not to rig their primaries!
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
Both Putin and Erdogan were elected, and continue to be elected.
Between the two I think it's clear which country is more free, liberal and democratic and it's not the one we're in a military alliance with.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
Both Putin and Erdogan were elected, and continue to be elected.
In free and fair elections? I should have said "western democracies".
One thing about Trump is that he owes favours to NO-ONE. He won despite the GOP hierarchy. He can tell Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan what to do and they will do it.
That is the most important thing.
Trump is de-facto the first independent President. It could have been Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan in 1992, one had the money the other the charisma but only Trump had both.
Yet he will have to deal with both the Senate and Congress because even the power of POTUS is constrained. Sean Hannity, who is very happy with the result, was calling for Ryan to be ousted and a more clearly pro-Trump Speaker.
Trump would have to be crazy to ditch Ryan. He needs all the help he can get in uniting the party and beginning to heal the country.
Trump owes a HUGE debt to Reince Priebus and the RNC.
Success will be any improvement in the functioning of DC, and the end of the logjam.
I can't speak to the former - as to the latter, one could argue the various re-drawings of districts to try to perpetuate a Republican majority in Congress is part of the problem.
The "logjam" as you put it isn't going to be easily shifted, I think. I don't get the sense the GOP caucuses in either the Senate or House are wholly united or even united behind Trump if he starts looking for additional Government spending.
If she does, she should acknowledge that people voted for change than continuity and she should have focused on her policies with a positive message, also of course she should say to women to keep the dream of breaking the glass ceiling alive but they have to earn it.
The most important thing is that she has to warn people not to repeat the mistakes of the democratic campaign and that they should learn from them.
Also that it's good to get more votes than Trump, but they need to be in the right places.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
The status quo (Obama) would have won comfortably...
50%+ approval ratings.
Yeah - Hillary had a tough act to follow
Regardless of approval level, no Democrat has won an election to replace an incumbent Democratic president since before the civil war.
The BBC are now treating Trump's election like Diana's funeral. Lots of pregnant pauses, lots of sombre tones, lots of sighing. I don't know why they don't go the whole hog and break out the black armbands. It is really pitiful. Maybe it's time to have a public referendum on the licence fee.
Success will be any improvement in the functioning of DC, and the end of the logjam.
I can't speak to the former - as to the latter, one could argue the various re-drawings of districts to try to perpetuate a Republican majority in Congress is part of the problem.
The "logjam" as you put it isn't going to be easily shifted, I think. I don't get the sense the GOP caucuses in either the Senate or House are wholly united or even united behind Trump if he starts looking for additional Government spending.
We'll see but thanks for the response.
The party in power re-draws the districts, so stop blaming the Republicans - both parties do it.
No it isn't going to be easily shifted, but it still needs to be done.
The BBC are now treating Trump's election like Diana's funeral. Lots of pregnant pauses, lots of sombre tones, lots of sighing. I don't know why they don't go the whole hog and break out the black armbands. It is really pitiful. Maybe it's time to have a public referendum on the licence fee.
They've had a tough couple of years. GE 2015, Brexit, and now this.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
Both Putin and Erdogan were elected, and continue to be elected.
In free and fair elections? I should have said "western democracies".
Certainly in the case of Erdogan, he was free and fairly elected. I think Putin was the same at first. It was their desire to continue being elected that saw the most egregious abuses.
As someone said about Erdogan: his secular predecessors were both corrupt and incompetent. Turks could just about stand one, but not both at the same time. They elected someone who, initially, was neither, but who has cemented his position ever since.
And I think adding the qualifier of "western" is very short-sighted. The mentality of Putin and Erdogan is hardly unknown in the west.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
Abortion rights in America are being chipped away one tiny piece at a time to extent it require extreme effort to get an abortion in many states.. Mississipi has 1 single abortion provider. Texas's onerous laws for abortion clinics were designed to force them to shut down.
< Trump would have to be crazy to ditch Ryan. He needs all the help he can get in uniting the party and beginning to heal the country.
Trump owes a HUGE debt to Reince Priebus and the RNC.
Will Trump see it in those terms ?
He might argue the GOP wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for him while the GOP might argue Trump wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for them.
To what extent is the Trump coalition predicated on the GOP cote or does it, as I suspect, include many Trump, as distinct from GOP, voters including those who had sat out previous General Elections ?
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
We simply disagree on our reading of where the US public is on these issues. But the polling and actions in state capitols favours my interpretation.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I was trying to think of one social reform that was passed, but later repealed. I couldn't think of one, but perhaps PB can?
Easy.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
I was thinking more in the democracies, a fair point on dictators though.
Both Putin and Erdogan were elected, and continue to be elected.
Between the two I think it's clear which country is more free, liberal and democratic and it's not the one we're in a military alliance with.
I happen to disagree. Erdogan is following in Putin's footsteps, not vice versa.
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
We simply disagree on our reading of where the US public is on these issues. But the polling and actions in state capitols favours my interpretation.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
We simply disagree on our reading of where the US public is on these issues. But the polling and actions in state capitols favours my interpretation.
I defer to your knowledge of the US; basically because you live there and are an intelligent and admirable chap.
However: there was a battle for those rights. Yes? People didn't have them, and struggled to get them.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
It takes a lot of courage to vote for someone you think is wrong, but powerless. I could never personally.
Wrong on some issues, less wrong on others, right on some, who knows on others. Better of two bad options. Refusing to lodge a Johnson protest vote out of a sense of civic responsibility so making a hard choice between the two viable candidates.
Am I right in thinking a 0.7% swing (flipping Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire*) would have won the election for Clinton?
So near, yet incredibly so far for her.
*Correction
I had the opinion from April until the Conventions that Trump could win the EV while losing the popular vote by as much as 4% due to Pennsylvania.
After the conventions Pennsylvania shifted to the left, but in the last week the state polling was moving everything in the Mid-West to Trump especially after the weekend, so it reverted to my earlier model of Trump winning the EV while marginally losing the Popular Vote.
What benefit is there to the states in the current set-up? The parties are national parties. Having an indirect electoral system for the presidency isn't the way the states maintain their influence over the centre.
< Trump would have to be crazy to ditch Ryan. He needs all the help he can get in uniting the party and beginning to heal the country.
Trump owes a HUGE debt to Reince Priebus and the RNC.
Will Trump see it in those terms ?
He might argue the GOP wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for him while the GOP might argue Trump wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for them.
To what extent is the Trump coalition predicated on the GOP cote or does it, as I suspect, include many Trump, as distinct from GOP, voters including those who had sat out previous General Elections ?
Trump will reward loyalists.
Priebus will be high on the list. Ryan not so much, but he did roll the dice with Trump in the end and probably gave Wisconsin to Trump, but politically he is castrated.
Ryan will have greater problems with his right flank in congress, that was plotting to remove him even before the election, than Trump.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
I am glad you managed to avoid the worst, Mr. Navabi. You said yesterday that you were in shirt-losing territory if Clinton went below 250 EC votes.
Thanks. Yes, my position yesterday was a thing of beauty, carefully crafted to maximise profit at around 310 to 330 ECVs and tailing off smoothly with the big losses confined to the outlying regions of less than 250 or over 375 ECVs. Unfortunately, as things turned out it was crafted around the wrong candidate's ECVs.
That's therefore 6,530 off the Trump lead between current NYT scoreboard and actual results from those counties, which puts him ahead by over 10,000 votes, with only small and heavily GOP Osceola, Gladwin and Chippewa not counted.
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Except, politics as we know is the art of the possible. Politicians begin their journey wanting to save the world and provide free owls for all. The reality is that compromises are made from the moment they take office.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
But no one can. Not Trump, not Brexit, not Jezza.
I think the answers to that require more time and space than I have here! But in my opinion whilst upsetting the establishment applecart does not equal a revival in fortunes for the working populations of 'The West', it ought at least to challenge some of it's more pernicious aspects. Overgrowth of corporate power, overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life, endless and costly foreign military interventions, power of supranational bodies without democratic accountability, etc.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Am I right in thinking a 0.7% swing (flipping Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire*) would have won the election for Clinton?
So near, yet incredibly so far for her.
*Correction
I had the opinion from April until the Conventions that Trump could win the EV while losing the popular vote by as much as 4% due to Pennsylvania.
After the conventions Pennsylvania shifted to the left, but in the last week the state polling was moving everything in the Mid-West to Trump especially after the weekend, so it reverted to my earlier model of Trump winning the EV while marginally losing the Popular Vote.
yes I was playing around with turnout models and there were many realistic scenarios where Trump could win EC whilst losing popular vote by 4%, but was hoping college educated whites would give her a big margin, but they didn't contary to all the polling. Guess Clinton wasn't the candidate to win a group that has voted republican for decades.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
THere's no way the base is picking a centrist in 2020. None, zip, zero.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
Not a chance as in POTUS or as in running? Plenty of people will be running in 2 years time as there is no obvious person to be the candidate.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Except, politics as we know is the art of the possible. Politicians begin their journey wanting to save the world and provide free owls for all. The reality is that compromises are made from the moment they take office.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
But no one can. Not Trump, not Brexit, not Jezza.
I think the answers to that require more time and space than I have here! But in my opinion whilst upsetting the establishment applecart does not equal a revival in fortunes for the working populations of 'The West', it ought at least to challenge some of it's more pernicious aspects. Overgrowth of corporate power, overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life, endless and costly foreign military interventions, power of supranational bodies without democratic accountability, etc.
Yet you admire Putin, for whom democratic accountability is a frippery, the positives of supranational bodies can be ignored, and costly foreign military interventions are fine as long as you control how they are sold to your serfs by the media.
Oh, and I'm not sure he decries the "overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life." Indeed, he loves it.
Touchscreen barely seems to work ... and the presenter keeps on reiterating how Minnesota went red for Trump and that's why Trump is going to finish with >320 electoral college votes!!!!
CNN coverage last night was top drawer, by contrast.
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
Not a chance as in POTUS or as in running? Plenty of people will be running in 2 years time as there is no obvious person to be the candidate.
Both, he will be neither President nor the nominee.
He will probably run as a candidate for the nomination but get 1% and drop off before Iowa.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Except, politics as we know is the art of the possible. Politicians begin their journey wanting to save the world and provide free owls for all. The reality is that compromises are made from the moment they take office.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
But no one can. Not Trump, not Brexit, not Jezza.
I think the answers to that require more time and space than I have here! But in my opinion whilst upsetting the establishment applecart does not equal a revival in fortunes for the working populations of 'The West', it ought at least to challenge some of it's more pernicious aspects. Overgrowth of corporate power, overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life, endless and costly foreign military interventions, power of supranational bodies without democratic accountability, etc.
Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. So let's see if the lobbyists and corporate influencers are thrown out of Washington. They won't go without a hell of a fight.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
That's the big one, they made assumptions about what their base was and who they had to appeal to.
Makes sense, CNN reported earlier that Hillary had lost Obama’s coalition of support, it would appear a few simply switched sides, but most stayed at home.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
Uninspiring candidate loses winnable election for left, so party shifts further left. Sounds familiar.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
We simply disagree on our reading of where the US public is on these issues. But the polling and actions in state capitols favours my interpretation.
Realistically, I don't think that even with a conservative majority, the Supreme Court would rule that same sex marriages that have taken place since 2015 will be annulled.
I imagine that such a Court would be more likely to uphold restrictions on abortion at State level, the right for States to retain capital punishment, and impose further restrictions on the use of affirmative action.
Well CNN speculating that Tim Kaine will run for President in 2020.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
Not a chance as in POTUS or as in running? Plenty of people will be running in 2 years time as there is no obvious person to be the candidate.
Both, he will be neither President nor the nominee.
He will probably run as a candidate for the nomination but get 1% and drop off before Iowa.
Ok, yeh, I would go along with that from what little I have seen.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
That's the big one, they made assumptions about what their base was and who they had to appeal to.
Every party has a 3 legged stool.
The Dems had the Working Class, Minorities and Intellectuals, remove one of them and the party loses.
Mr. Rabbit, I'm not so sure the odds are too short on Le Pen. The French system (unless she gets an outright majority right off the bat, which seems unlikely) makes it very easy for people to know when they need to tactically vote against her.
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Arranged from left to right Blair is not extreme left. Relatively more left-wing than other PMs, yes. But that doesn't equal extreme left.
Do you know what the phrase "most extreme" means? He is literally the furthest left wing election winner we have ever had in my whole lifetime. In the last 40 years.
You seem to think "most extreme" and "furthest to the left" are synonyms. Technically perhaps, but to most normal people "most extreme" means that from a bunch of people all of whom are extremists you refer specifically to the one who is even more extreme than all the rest :-)
I can't believe my first post for months is about grammar
I would have thought, given the bombshell that the result turned out to be, that it was unwise to rush to too hasty conclusions about what went right for Donald Trump and what went wrong for Hillary Clinton. Time for some quiet reflection I'd have thought.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
I can't see it - Thatcher when she was first elected, or Cameron, might beat him. But that's the problem: left and right is not only a silly measure in some ways; it is a reaction to the times. Thatcher was against Callaghan and then Foot. Blair was against Major. Cameron was against Brown. That is who we measure them against, not modern standards. Or indeed the standards of each other.
That is a genuinely interesting point. I also considered the argument that we could have three Tony Blairs in the pantheon. That might be a bit much for most people's tastes, but the 2001 vintage Blair was not the same as 1997.
I quite liked Philip's subtle attempt at reference frame readjustment though. (The original comment he was picking up on was that "everyone to the left of Tony Blair" is disparaged here. But "are they to the left of Tony Blair?" seems to serve as a decent test of the British electoral palatability for the past four decades, so clearly isn't just bias peculiar to right-wing PBers.)
Erdogan's actions on (social) media, the judiciary and so on are not the actions of a man who believes in an open democracy.
I have seen no evidence that Erdogan's first election in 2002 was unfair.
My point is that he changed once in power, as did Putin. As electors, we need to beware of people who might wish to twist democracy to give themselves more power, and extend their power over non-governmental things like the media. This is one reason I'm wary about Leveson.
And as I keep on mentoning: Erdogan is only following where Putin's already gone. And from his viewpoint, why shouldn't he: no-one's stopped Putin.
Mr. Rabbit, I'm not so sure the odds are too short on Le Pen. The French system (unless she gets an outright majority right off the bat, which seems unlikely) makes it very easy for people to know when they need to tactically vote against her.
So that's why they're too short! As long as she's up against Juppe I can't see her winning.
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
Erdogan's actions on (social) media, the judiciary and so on are not the actions of a man who believes in an open democracy.
I have seen no evidence that Erdogan's first election in 2002 was unfair.
My point is that he changed once in power, as did Putin. As electors, we need to beware of people who might wish to twist democracy to give themselves more power, and extend their power over non-governmental things like the media. This is one reason I'm wary about Leveson.
And as I keep on mentoning: Erdogan is only following where Putin's already gone. And from his viewpoint, why shouldn't he: no-one's stopped Putin.
Where is the parallel in what Erdogan is doing now with what Putin has done?
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
That's does put they hyperbole into a bit of perspective, and I generally agree.
Comments
As they say in Yorkshire, "There'll all racist except for me 'n thee, and I'm not so sure about thee."
That says it all.
Look at Turkey or Russia. Look at the similarities between Trump, Erdogan and Putin.
A big signal on this for Trump will be on Roe vs Wade and the availability of contraception. I fear regression.
This means officially just two tiny towns which will break approximately 50/50 Trump/Clinton but need to go 95/5 to Trump for him to win.
All done....
I ask because Trump promised the sun, the moon and the stars this morning without saying anything of substance. It was a speech channelling Reagan and Keynes at the same time and to this observer unachievable.
Some or all of the coalition who voted Trump yesterday are going to be disappointed in the next 3-4 years and I just wonder where your "red lines" are or will be.
Yeah - Hillary had a tough act to follow
Clinton's victory celebration was at the Jacob Javits Center in NYC. For those who haven't been there, it has a glass ceiling. The irony.
The most important thing is that she has to warn people not to repeat the mistakes of the democratic campaign and that they should learn from them.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Trump owes a HUGE debt to Reince Priebus and the RNC.
I owe you a drink if ever I see you, got another £186 profit from the election Thankyou very much.
The "logjam" as you put it isn't going to be easily shifted, I think. I don't get the sense the GOP caucuses in either the Senate or House are wholly united or even united behind Trump if he starts looking for additional Government spending.
We'll see but thanks for the response.
So near, yet incredibly so far for her.
*Correction
No it isn't going to be easily shifted, but it still needs to be done.
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
As someone said about Erdogan: his secular predecessors were both corrupt and incompetent. Turks could just about stand one, but not both at the same time. They elected someone who, initially, was neither, but who has cemented his position ever since.
And I think adding the qualifier of "western" is very short-sighted. The mentality of Putin and Erdogan is hardly unknown in the west.
It is like large parts of UK media and Brexit, I doubt they know many people who voted leave / will admit it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fhCcMrO8GM
He might argue the GOP wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for him while the GOP might argue Trump wouldn't have won if it hadn't been for them.
To what extent is the Trump coalition predicated on the GOP cote or does it, as I suspect, include many Trump, as distinct from GOP, voters including those who had sat out previous General Elections ?
Italian referendum, Austrian Presidential ...
However: there was a battle for those rights. Yes? People didn't have them, and struggled to get them.
Are they being reversed and degraded?
After the conventions Pennsylvania shifted to the left, but in the last week the state polling was moving everything in the Mid-West to Trump especially after the weekend, so it reverted to my earlier model of Trump winning the EV while marginally losing the Popular Vote.
Matt cartoon is funny.
Legislatures in 11 states have already enacted a National Popular Vote bill.
Priebus will be high on the list.
Ryan not so much, but he did roll the dice with Trump in the end and probably gave Wisconsin to Trump, but politically he is castrated.
Ryan will have greater problems with his right flank in congress, that was plotting to remove him even before the election, than Trump.
Genesee: Clinton by 18,570 https://co.genesee.mi.us/currentelectionsresults/summary.htm
Washtenaw: Clinton by 77,690 https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2016/canvassreport530.html
Wayne: Clinton by 288,709
http://www.waynecounty.com/documents/exec/clerk/U_results110916_7am.pdf
That's a lead of 384,969 from those counties.
NYT has a lead currently of 378,439. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan
That's therefore 6,530 off the Trump lead between current NYT scoreboard and actual results from those counties, which puts him ahead by over 10,000 votes, with only small and heavily GOP Osceola, Gladwin and Chippewa not counted.
So Trump wins Michigan and 301+ evs. For certain.
Not a chance, he is mistake No.8 that Hillary did, picking a blase centrist Democrat for VP when almost half of her party voted for a socialist-populist.
Liza Warren is probably the bet for 2020.
https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/796378238306160641
Erdogan's actions on (social) media, the judiciary and so on are not the actions of a man who believes in an open democracy.
Oh, and I'm not sure he decries the "overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life." Indeed, he loves it.
Touchscreen barely seems to work ... and the presenter keeps on reiterating how Minnesota went red for Trump and that's why Trump is going to finish with >320 electoral college votes!!!!
CNN coverage last night was top drawer, by contrast.
He will probably run as a candidate for the nomination but get 1% and drop off before Iowa.
I imagine that such a Court would be more likely to uphold restrictions on abortion at State level, the right for States to retain capital punishment, and impose further restrictions on the use of affirmative action.
The Dems had the Working Class, Minorities and Intellectuals, remove one of them and the party loses.
I can't believe my first post for months is about grammar
Oh wait... I can :-(
I quite liked Philip's subtle attempt at reference frame readjustment though. (The original comment he was picking up on was that "everyone to the left of Tony Blair" is disparaged here. But "are they to the left of Tony Blair?" seems to serve as a decent test of the British electoral palatability for the past four decades, so clearly isn't just bias peculiar to right-wing PBers.)
My point is that he changed once in power, as did Putin. As electors, we need to beware of people who might wish to twist democracy to give themselves more power, and extend their power over non-governmental things like the media. This is one reason I'm wary about Leveson.
And as I keep on mentoning: Erdogan is only following where Putin's already gone. And from his viewpoint, why shouldn't he: no-one's stopped Putin.