politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Away from the dramatic political events in the US tonight’s Lo

The real McCoy, none of that foreign muck.

Thanks Harry.

I'll stick my neck out and guess Con gain in Wandsworth and hold in Horsham, and Lab holds in Greenwich and North Herts.

Can HYUFD let everyone know what kind of UKIP surge we should expect tonight?

Alistair said:

Ftpt

The electoral college is part of the constitution but how the states decide how the electoral votes are applied is up to each state. So if 270 electoral votes worth of states decide to give all votes to the winner of the national popular vote then that is that.

The better solution would be for each state to allocate EVs on a share of the vote requiring candidates to make themselves attractive to the whole country, not just the states deemed swing states.

Sean_F said:

I'll stick my neck out and guess Con gain in Wandsworth and hold in Horsham, and Lab holds in Greenwich and North Herts.

I'll stick my neck further out and guess LibDem gain in Horsham.

Pulpstar said:

Con Gain
LD Gain
Lab Hold
Con Gain

Be surprised to see a con gain in London (cert not Greenwich)

SeanT said:

FROM PREVIOUS THREAD

Still laughing.

I think you can keep repeating that until 2017 at least.

IanB2 said:

Pulpstar said:

Con Gain
LD Gain
Lab Hold
Con Gain

Be surprised to see a con gain in London (cert not Greenwich)

Eltham was probably for Leave. London isn't homogenous.

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

Ftpt

The electoral college is part of the constitution but how the states decide how the electoral votes are applied is up to each state. So if 270 electoral votes worth of states decide to give all votes to the winner of the national popular vote then that is that.

The better solution would be for each state to allocate EVs on a share of the vote requiring candidates to make themselves attractive to the whole country, not just the states deemed swing states.

Fairly certain that proportional voting of that sort would favour the Reps as states with big EC votes would split evenly but states with small votes would break lumpily. And the Reps win lots more small states.

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

From the last thread

"Mussolini and Hitler only really started murdering people after they came to power (the latter much more than the former obviously). In fact I don't know if Musso had anyone murdered before he became PM."

Not so in the case of the Nazis - they were very very violent, long before they reached power. Apart from the attempted coup, which killed quite alot of people.... In fact one of Hitler's first acts was to pardon/let out of jail all the Nazis who had committed political murders.

Yeah, that's why I wrote 'only really started murdering'; millions is obviously several orders of magnitude greater than hundreds.
The point still stands about Mussolini.

Unless you count Fiume - where quite a few people were killed by D'Annunzio. He was backed by Mussolini.

SeanT said:

Malmesbury said:

From the last thread

"Mussolini and Hitler only really started murdering people after they came to power (the latter much more than the former obviously). In fact I don't know if Musso had anyone murdered before he became PM."

Not so in the case of the Nazis - they were very very violent, long before they reached power. Apart from the attempted coup, which killed quite alot of people.... In fact one of Hitler's first acts was to pardon/let out of jail all the Nazis who had committed political murders.

These are the most absurd comparisons. Hitler went to jail for a putsch, and wrote Mein Kampf, wherein he promised to destroy Jews.

Trump built casinos, dated bimbos, went bust, and was a Democrat for a while.

Fucking lefty intellectuals have become utterly pathetic. They are so unused to having their core opinions seriously challenged they go into meltdown when it happens.

Trump is just a standard Hitler, Modi and Abe are mega Hitlers and Putin is an ultra Hitler. Hitler, though, was a Zionist, apparently.

JosiasJessop said:

FPT:

Dixie said:

Malmesbury said:

Dixie said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

ydoethur said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

chestnut said:

Varoufakis comparing Trump to Hitler and Mussolini.

Trump is Hitler and Mussolini with nukes. I haven't eaten since Pennsylvania was called.

Trump is a deeply unpleasant human being. He will make a very bad president. Some of the things he has said means it would not be wise to leave him alone with young women. He may even be a genuine threat to the world.

However, I can't off-hand name the people he has murdered, unlike Hitler and Mussolini in their rise to power.

The Berlusconi comparison is apt. The others are not.

Berlusconi on steroids with a nuclear football to play with. Thank you Joe Sixpack.

that's true. Nuclear Button will be like a comupter game for him.

There is no "Nuclear Button"

Is it an App now?

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearexplosionsimulator/

Try http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ - it has loads more options to play around with.

SeanT said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Malmesbury said:

From the last thread

"Mussolini and Hitler only really started murdering people after they came to power (the latter much more than the former obviously). In fact I don't know if Musso had anyone murdered before he became PM."

Not so in the case of the Nazis - they were very very violent, long before they reached power. Apart from the attempted coup, which killed quite alot of people.... In fact one of Hitler's first acts was to pardon/let out of jail all the Nazis who had committed political murders.

Yeah, that's why I wrote 'only really started murdering'; millions is obviously several orders of magnitude greater than hundreds.
The point still stands about Mussolini.

Mussolini was a socialist-Futurist in the beginning. And always worshipped violence, like many Futurists.

There is no comparison. Trump is a mixture of Berlusconi and a kind of rightwing Chavez.

Yep, there's a total absence of violence worship on the American right.

https://twitter.com/OneTrump4All/status/767079970929770496

Hmm

Wonder if Mike Pence might be 2024 pres ?

Pulpstar said:

Hmm

Wonder if Mike Pence might be 2024 pres ?

No. I know my predictive power reputation is in tatters at the moment but I was shit hot on the Republican nomination process and Pence won't be it.

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 5h5 hours ago

How many Wisconsin provisional ballots outstanding? Trump's margin is only 27K & likely to decrease. Could get inside 0.5% recount range
0 replies . 43 retweets 67 likes

Exclusive footage of Trump Jnr getting a tour of behind the scenes at the white house...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-1F7vaNP9w0

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Fewer protesters taking to the streets, whinging about their candidate losing.

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I think so too.

Which makes Farage the most influential politician of this era.

rpjs said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

Brexit was a lot bigger news in US than you would think.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rpjs said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

Brexit was a lot bigger news in US than you would think.

The financial movements made it difficult to ignore but even the people for whom it resonated didn't have much idea what it was all about.

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt many Trump voters either knew or cared about Brexit. This is America we're talking about: foreign news is what's happening in a neighbouring state.

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rpjs said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

Brexit was a lot bigger news in US than you would think.

The financial movements made it difficult to ignore but even the people for whom it resonated didn't have much idea what it was all about.

They knew is was people rebelling against the establishment and winning though, just what Trump was trying to achieve (and now has).

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I think so too.

Which makes Farage the most influential politician of this era.

No question. Farage is the most successful and important British politician in a generation. He has changed politics worldwide. It is surely sweet revenge: on all those who laughed at him.

The tears of Anna Soubry, at Brexit, must have been particularly delightful, after she made that obscene, derisive, live-TV joke about him liking a finger up his arse. Then he won. And she was reduced to pitiful sobs.

I think Nige must have wanted to use her tears as lube that night for his bum fingering.

FrancisUrquhart said:

rpjs said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

Brexit was a lot bigger news in US than you would think.

We had a holiday in California in July. I was surprised by just how many people (i.e. loads) asked about or at least mentioned Brexit. Did we expect it, were we happy about it, what did we think would happen next - that kind of stuff.

@Stark_Dawning

'I doubt many Trump voters either knew or cared about Brexit.'

So that's why Trump kept on mentioning it Brexit plus plus,had Farage addressing rallies and US journalists referring to the rust belt states as the Brexit states ?

john_zims said:

@Stark_Dawning

'I doubt many Trump voters either knew or cared about Brexit.'

So that's why Trump kept on mentioning it,had Farage addressing rallies and US journalist referring to the rust belt states as the Brexit states ?

trump VOTERS.

arc Caputo Retweeted
Maury Litwack ‏@mlitwack Nov 9

worst Democratic performance in the electoral college since Dukakis
0 replies . 15 retweets 18 likes

wasd said:

I'm not certain that's a pandora's box we can close - especially not when our ability to sort and manipulate atoms appears to be moving down the same cost/ease curve as everything else.

The asteroid problem also suggests that keeping some around and functional has some utility.

I agree (*) with your first paragraph. It is hard to uninvent something that has been invented, especially when the cost of ownership is reducing.

As for your second paragraph: AIUI the nuke-the-asteroid approach is frowned upon nowadays - there is a danger you'll just have two or three large chunks heading in on even more unpredictable trajectories. Instead, it is easier and safer to send up a rocket with a 'pusher' that will apply a small force to the asteroid. If it's far enough out, you only need a small delta-V to make it miss Earth completely. Even better, if it has enough fuel you can fire it multiple times.

In fact, this is one of the reasons behind the recent land-on-asteroid missions, such as Hayabosa.

(*) Better than 'indeed' ?

https://twitter.com/Nigerianscamsss/status/796785674779234304

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I agree with all of those, although I'm not sure what he'll do about Obamacare. Just repealing it and letting millions of people go without healthcare probably wouldn't be popular in practice. There are a bunch of things he could do if he has the political space, like expanding medicare while deregulating private insurance, but it's all very complicated and has a lot of entrenched interests.

The other thing he can do is borrow money for serious infrastructure spending, a lot of which goes to rural areas. This is another thing that Obama would probably have liked to do, had the GOP let him. It's been a key component of Japan's eternal conservative government ever since the 1970s: Take money from urban voters, spend it on job-creating construction projects in rural areas, a portion of that money comes back as political donations from construction companies.

MaxPB said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I think so too.

Which makes Farage the most influential politician of this era.

No question. Farage is the most successful and important British politician in a generation. He has changed politics worldwide. It is surely sweet revenge: on all those who laughed at him.

I think to class as a successful politician you have to actually hold office and achieve things. I'll give you campaigner or activist: a kind of Emmeline Pankhurst de nos jours.

He has dragged the UK out of the EU, something which people said wasn't possible. He has also probably inspired the largest rebellion of all time in the US since the civil war.

On the second point, come off it... No-one but Trump can claim the credit for that. He started his campaign well before Brexit and had annihilated the Republican establishment well before Brexit. If anything you could argue that it was he who helped inspire the anti-establishment mood during our campaign.

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I think so too.

Which makes Farage the most influential politician of this era.

No question. Farage is the most successful and important British politician in a generation. He has changed politics worldwide. It is surely sweet revenge: on all those who laughed at him.

The tears of Anna Soubry, at Brexit, must have been particularly delightful, after she made that obscene, derisive, live-TV joke about him liking a finger up his arse. Then he won. And she was reduced to pitiful sobs.

Anna Soubry's tears went viral on social media, among eurosceptics.

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I agree with all of those, although I'm not sure what he'll do about Obamacare. Just repealing it and letting millions of people go without healthcare probably wouldn't be popular in practice. There are a bunch of things he could do if he has the political space, like expanding medicare while deregulating private insurance, but it's all very complicated and has a lot of entrenched interests.

The other thing he can do is borrow money for serious infrastructure spending, a lot of which goes to rural areas. This is another thing that Obama would probably have liked to do, had the GOP let him. It's been a key component of Japan's eternal conservative government ever since the 1970s: Take money from urban voters, spend it on job-creating construction projects in rural areas, a portion of that money comes back as political donations from construction companies.

Agree about the obvious build lots of stuff (and America does actually need it), but Won't he have problems with the debt limits laws?

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

If those dull, stiff upper lip Brits can go crazy so can we?

@SeanT


'He forced the referendum, and then he won it. The greatest rupture in British politics in 60 years. And now Brexit has led to Trump. Who knows where it will go from here.'

And achieved it with virtually no parliamentary representation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI

8:00 minutes in

Trump & Brexit the natural byproducts.

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I agree with all of those, although I'm not sure what he'll do about Obamacare. Just repealing it and letting millions of people go without healthcare probably wouldn't be popular in practice. There are a bunch of things he could do if he has the political space, like expanding medicare while deregulating private insurance, but it's all very complicated and has a lot of entrenched interests.

The other thing he can do is borrow money for serious infrastructure spending, a lot of which goes to rural areas. This is another thing that Obama would probably have liked to do, had the GOP let him. It's been a key component of Japan's eternal conservative government ever since the 1970s: Take money from urban voters, spend it on job-creating construction projects in rural areas, a portion of that money comes back as political donations from construction companies.

What sort of stuff could be built that does not end up being a bunch of white elephants? Seems kind of short term as there will need to be work for those who were involved in the projects once they have been completed.

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rpjs said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt it. Most Americans don't give a dam what happens in Europe, assuming that they've heard of what's going on there, and we are European to them whether you think we are or not.

Brexit was a lot bigger news in US than you would think.

The financial movements made it difficult to ignore but even the people for whom it resonated didn't have much idea what it was all about.

No one follows the financial movements.

It's a while since I've been in the States but I'd be amazed if Brexit had too much of an effect.

Of course The Donald noted and used it for his own end very effectively but that's a slightly different matter.

MP_SE said:

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I agree with all of those, although I'm not sure what he'll do about Obamacare. Just repealing it and letting millions of people go without healthcare probably wouldn't be popular in practice. There are a bunch of things he could do if he has the political space, like expanding medicare while deregulating private insurance, but it's all very complicated and has a lot of entrenched interests.

The other thing he can do is borrow money for serious infrastructure spending, a lot of which goes to rural areas. This is another thing that Obama would probably have liked to do, had the GOP let him. It's been a key component of Japan's eternal conservative government ever since the 1970s: Take money from urban voters, spend it on job-creating construction projects in rural areas, a portion of that money comes back as political donations from construction companies.

What sort of stuff could be built that does not end up being a bunch of white elephants? Seems kind of short term as there will need to be work for those who were involved in the projects once they have been completed.

US roads are a mess. Trains / subways in many places are bad or non-existant. Many cities are struggling and populations are growing rapidly.

SeanT said:

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I'm not sure. Economic nationalism is why the Rust Belt unionised labour voted for Trump. They don't care about social conservatism, nor does Trump obviously. That's just for the Republican Party faithful.

How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states. When Trump stood in the shadow of a Ford Motor factory during the Michigan primary, he threatened the corporation that if they did indeed go ahead with their planned closure of that factory and move it to Mexico, he would slap a 35% tariff on any Mexican-built cars shipped back to the United States. It was sweet, sweet music to the ears of the working class of Michigan Michael Moore - 5 Reasons why Trump will win

That 35% tariff will destroy NAFTA and quite possibly the WTO too. But I think he will do it. Why should he care about International rules that have brought the country to its knees? He's there for America.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MP_SE said:

edmundintokyo said:

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

FPT: Fair point re Kennedy - he could retire but my point is he may well not. We just don't know. John Paul Stevens went on until he was 90. People are living much longer and in good health.

The other thing we don't know for 100% certain is who Trump will appoint. He obviously won't appoint liberals but how conservative will his appointments actually be?

There are already signs that he is moderating significantly compared to the campaign - and how confident can anyone be of his views?

Trump is a vain and arrogant man, as well as a very smart man. He will want a legacy, and he will want at least the possibility of a second term.

He will have to follow through on SOME of his manifesto, or be loathed and repudiated. He's an old man in a hurry, in short.

I don't see how he can deliver the protectionist, rust-belt reviving economic agenda, it is undoable. And as a businessman he knows this. So he HAS to deliver the anti-migrant, social conservative agenda. He will move against illegal immigrants, against Muslims, against liberal judges, against Obamacare etc etc

I agree with all of those, although I'm not sure what he'll do about Obamacare. Just repealing it and letting millions of people go without healthcare probably wouldn't be popular in practice. There are a bunch of things he could do if he has the political space, like expanding medicare while deregulating private insurance, but it's all very complicated and has a lot of entrenched interests.

The other thing he can do is borrow money for serious infrastructure spending, a lot of which goes to rural areas. This is another thing that Obama would probably have liked to do, had the GOP let him. It's been a key component of Japan's eternal conservative government ever since the 1970s: Take money from urban voters, spend it on job-creating construction projects in rural areas, a portion of that money comes back as political donations from construction companies.

What sort of stuff could be built that does not end up being a bunch of white elephants? Seems kind of short term as there will need to be work for those who were involved in the projects once they have been completed.

US roads are a mess. Trains / subways in many places are bad or non-existant. Many cities are struggling and populations are growing rapidly.

Interesting. Thank you.

FF43 said:

Stark_Dawning said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

Apologies for attempting to derail such an enlightening discussion but are there any views on how things might have been different in the USA if Remain had won here ?

Without Brexit, Trump wouldn't have won. Simple as. Brexit was a crucial "inflection point" as Meeks has described it. We gave them permission.

I doubt many Trump voters either knew or cared about Brexit. This is America we're talking about: foreign news is what's happening in a neighbouring state.

Apparently there's now a #Calexit movement for California to leave the Trump presided Union. There's a lot of this stuff about, although undoubtedly more noise than substance in this case.

#Californaway, surely? Or #Califarewell

May is going to get on better with Trump than Cameron though, so a surprise blessing there

Pulpstar said:

8:00 minutes in

Trump & Brexit the natural byproducts.

Spot on. That's a brilliant interview and probably the most eloquent argument against globalisation. He demolishes Laura Tyson who's still a mainstay on the government/pseudo-charity/pseudo-academia circuit (and one of the people whose career plan for 2017 just got revised).