politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the 5/1 that President Trump will be impeached during his
Options
Comments
-
It's fair to say that more people voted in favour of a Clinton presidency than a Trump one; they did so the only way they could, not having a say over the counting rules; and that if it was one person one vote the result may have been different.glw said:
Exactly, it's a stupid argument, a bit like taking FPTP results and extrapolating what would have happened under AV. If the system was different people would vote differently.Richard_Nabavi said:How on earth do you know that? If the electoral system were different, candidates would campaign differently and voters would vote differently. There might, for example, be millions of Californians who would have voted for Trump if they thought it would make a difference. Or there might be millions more who would have voted for Hillary. No-one knows, but the fact is that Trump won fair and square under the rules of the election.
It's also true that if my auntie was my uncle she'd have a pair of goolies; and that assuming there wasn't significant voting fraud, Trump won according to the rules.0 -
BA did a deal with the US so that can pull the required number of passengers for the secondary search from economy rather than across all classes.
One of the reasons I don't fly economy is whenever I go business/upper class is I very rarely get stopped.Cyclefree said:Morning all.
Despite being the most pacific and sweet looking person I always get stopped by security at airports - setting off alarms everywhere, despite taking everything off which could possibly trigger them. It is becoming quite tiresome having to strip off every time. It's getting to the stage where I'm just going to go to the airport in my nightie, bring my clothes and get dressed after I've had security clearance.
I reckon they think most terrorists won't fly luxury.
If course, as GGL, they never bother me
0 -
Mr. Herdson, even counting that.
Of course, Rome was aided by the unfettered excellence of Aurelian.0 -
In my house, when we want to play cards we do this:Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
We deal all four players 13 cards. A nominated person then chooses whether they want to play Sevens (a game where picture cards are generally bad) or Whist (where they are generally good).
Apparently you would have the US do the same - choose the rules after the cards been dealt.0 -
Mr PB,
Best to give the horse a slap and let the Remainers jog off in the wagon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8tz2jhRAC8
"Europhiles. Farsands of 'em."
Mr P has provided me with another excuse to post this.
Edited for accuracy.0 -
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.0 -
God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.0
-
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0 -
Shop til you drop....
UK retail sales rose at their fastest annual rate in 14 years in October, bolstered by colder weather and Halloween sales at supermarkets.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said sales volumes in October were up 7.4% from a year earlier.
On a monthly basis, sales jumped 1.9% from September - a much stronger increase than economists had forecast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-380114770 -
Surely in theory you could win with 652? 2 votes in each of 326 constituencies no one else gets more than 1 vote.MaxPB said:
Nah, not a million votes. I think 8m is the absolute minimum. 1m is ~3000 votes in each of 326 seats, or winning 40 seats with 25k votes in each one. I really don't think it would be possible not to win and have 20m votes.weejonnie said:In the UK - a political party could win power by securing 1 million votes - or fail to win power and securing 20 million votes. These are admittedly (nearly) extremes and the most likely scenarios are those where the party wins the popular vote and the election - but this is not guaranteed.
Unlikely scenario, I grant you, but we are becoming increasingly atomized as a society0 -
It’s a disgrace, using money from others to bribe them for support..! – that’s the EU’s job.Sean_F said:
Clearly, the money was well spent.Scott_P said:@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAK: UKIP misspent almost half a million of EU funding on electioneering, and to boost their Brexit campaign - EU audit @SkyNews NEXT.
0 -
326 votes is the hard minimum for a majority.Charles said:
Surely in theory you could win with 652? 2 votes in each of 326 constituencies no one else gets more than 1 vote.MaxPB said:
Nah, not a million votes. I think 8m is the absolute minimum. 1m is ~3000 votes in each of 326 seats, or winning 40 seats with 25k votes in each one. I really don't think it would be possible not to win and have 20m votes.weejonnie said:In the UK - a political party could win power by securing 1 million votes - or fail to win power and securing 20 million votes. These are admittedly (nearly) extremes and the most likely scenarios are those where the party wins the popular vote and the election - but this is not guaranteed.
Unlikely scenario, I grant you, but we are becoming increasingly atomized as a society0 -
Never mind California, it's those flown-over dudes in Michigan who are holding up over £4K of funds in my Betfair account.Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
0 -
If everyone takes their seats in the commons...Pulpstar said:
326 votes is the hard minimum for a majority.Charles said:
Surely in theory you could win with 652? 2 votes in each of 326 constituencies no one else gets more than 1 vote.MaxPB said:
Nah, not a million votes. I think 8m is the absolute minimum. 1m is ~3000 votes in each of 326 seats, or winning 40 seats with 25k votes in each one. I really don't think it would be possible not to win and have 20m votes.weejonnie said:In the UK - a political party could win power by securing 1 million votes - or fail to win power and securing 20 million votes. These are admittedly (nearly) extremes and the most likely scenarios are those where the party wins the popular vote and the election - but this is not guaranteed.
Unlikely scenario, I grant you, but we are becoming increasingly atomized as a society
Recounts as one vote in each constituency recorded...!
Actually don't they draw lots if it's a draw? So you could win, based on luck alone, if no-one got any votes in 326 seats.0 -
EU money being misspent...whatever next, FIFA being found to be corrupt?0
-
Mrs J flew abroad on business for a chip-design company with 'silicon' in its name. On arrival, the female customs official examines Mrs J's documentation, than stares at her cleavage. "What does your company do?"Sandpit said:
That's a good one!glw said:
A friend of mine tells a story about a friend of his who was transporting a technical component, for radar I think, through the US. Because the object was both secret and valuable he carried the component in a case as hand luggage. He had appropriate documentation for security and customs so that he could take in unopened onto an aircraft.Mortimer said:Oh dear. I find the level of attention paid to me depends on whether I've shaved or not. Apparently I look like a gent when clean shaven, and some sort of smuggler when stubbled...
Best story I ever heard was a pal's Pa who received a stern talking too after having tried to get 6 shot cartridges through security that were in his favourite Barbour.
But he met with this security guard who insisted that he had to examine the component, and would not accept the documentation. Anyway this argument resulted in a phone call to a government office who told the security guard to let the friend through, but the guard would not budge. Eventually the friend was given permission by the government office to open the case and let the guard inspect the contents, on the basis that he wouldn't know what he was looking at anyway. The guard opened it up, saw the radiation warning symbol (which is common on radar) and funny looking object and exclaimed "Holy shit! A God damned nuclear torpedo!"
My father once got a call early in the morning to go to Heathrow and bail out a colleague. This was mid '80s. He was taking a prototype electronic device to Europe somewhere, and was under instruction not to have the sensitive electronics go through the scanner as they'd get fried.
The colleague's comment to the security guy of "Don't put that through the scanner, because it will blow up" managed to get half of Heathrow evacuated!
"Technology," Mrs J replied. "It's 'silicon', not 'silicone'."
"Ah," the official says. "Chips, not tits."
(She swears the official actually said 'tits'.)0 -
I was like that but did a 1-50, 50-1 "swap" with funds to the popular vote. Which was safer, but a bit poorer for time value of money.Richard_Nabavi said:
Never mind California, it's those flown-over dudes in Michigan who are holding up over £4K of funds in my Betfair account.Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
0 -
It would all be about how brilliant her campaign had been at micro-targetting and getting out the vote where it was needed.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As it happens, she seems to have got Trump's vote out where it was needed.0 -
A friend from work has a pretty huge amount on the ECV market for Trump on Spreadex which I don't think has been settled yet since the figures aren't final until Michigan is declared.Richard_Nabavi said:
Never mind California, it's those flown-over dudes in Michigan who are holding up over £4K of funds in my Betfair account.Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
0 -
Pulpstar said:
God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
Don't worry. They would have until Jan 20th...
0 -
Incidentally if there was a market on the sun rising in the morning what price would people want to back "No" at ?0
-
Mr Jessop,
"Ah," the official says. "Chips, not tits."
Very good.0 -
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).0 -
The swing States gave Trump a lead of 2% overall. That is excellent targeting. Hillary pulled off her best results in States that were useless to her.Richard_Nabavi said:
It would all be about how brilliant her campaign had been at micro-targetting and getting out the vote where it was needed.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As it happens, she seems to have got Trump's vote out where it was needed.0 -
The irritating thing is that the funds don't even depend on the Michigan result - I've got a theoretical liability on Clinton 179 or less and on 270-299, neither of which can now happen.Pulpstar said:
I was like that but did a 1-50, 50-1 "swap" with funds to the popular vote. Which was safer, but a bit poorer for time value of money.Richard_Nabavi said:
Never mind California, it's those flown-over dudes in Michigan who are holding up over £4K of funds in my Betfair account.Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
0 -
If someone asks me what Mrs J does, I tell them that she's a chip designer: she designs the crinkles for McCains.CD13 said:Mr Jessop,
"Ah," the official says. "Chips, not tits."
Very good.
I sometimes wonder why she hasn't divorced me yet ... 0 -
Technically December 19th (that's when the Electoral College meets to cast its votes) </pedant >MarkHopkins said:Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
Don't worry. They would have until Jan 20th...0 -
Where's this report 'Brexit' black hole of £100bn come from, if the economy's been growing ahead of forecast?0
-
And we've had Trumpers from Big Daddy down roaring foul. Of course the consequences of that might have been a little more, well, consequential.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.”
“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons, I think they should disarm. Immediately. What do you think. Yes? Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Take them. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, OK. It will be very dangerous.”0 -
Anecdote from the Middle East: Weekend trips to London are the way to do the Christmas Shopping this year. The lag between the exchange rate and retail prices is producing some fantastic bargains in the U.K. for those spending dollars.FrancisUrquhart said:Shop til you drop....
UK retail sales rose at their fastest annual rate in 14 years in October, bolstered by colder weather and Halloween sales at supermarkets.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said sales volumes in October were up 7.4% from a year earlier.
On a monthly basis, sales jumped 1.9% from September - a much stronger increase than economists had forecast.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-380114770 -
I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).
0 -
California would count quicker though if their votes mattered. Like anyone with a deadline.Lennon said:
Technically December 19th (that's when the Electoral College meets to cast its votes) </pedant >MarkHopkins said:Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
Don't worry. They would have until Jan 20th...0 -
Even counting it, that'd be just shy of 1000 years wouldn't it?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, even counting that.
Of course, Rome was aided by the unfettered excellence of Aurelian.0 -
Not brilliant targeting from either Trump or Clinton. When you're talking 1% margins it's all luck. Trump has legitimately won the election. That's all we need to know.Richard_Nabavi said:
It would all be about how brilliant her campaign had been at micro-targetting and getting out the vote where it was needed.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As it happens, she seems to have got Trump's vote out where it was needed.0 -
Polls. Sure.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).0 -
No. But somebody else might have mentioned the word 'rigged'.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
It is a bloody stupid system.0 -
One of the surprising things about the election is that it seems that those Trump rallies were well chosen, so somebody in his campaign knew what they were doing.Richard_Nabavi said:It would all be about how brilliant her campaign had been at micro-targetting and getting out the vote where it was needed.
As it happens, she seems to have got Trump's vote out where it was needed.
0 -
The remoaners and deniers writing for the FT.Morris_Dancer said:Where's this report 'Brexit' black hole of £100bn come from, if the economy's been growing ahead of forecast?
0 -
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
0 -
She did plenty of fund-raising events in California and New York.SouthamObserver said:
I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).0 -
Well I didn't want to be too unrealistic - I was thinking of 10 candidates in 326 seats thus winning with 10.01%.. For 20 million I was thinking of 50,000 votes in 325 seats (16.25 million) and 20,000 in 325 (6.5 million). But yes, in theory (unless there are any rules about a quorum) you can win a seat with 1 vote (or even 0 if no one else is standing).Charles said:
Surely in theory you could win with 652? 2 votes in each of 326 constituencies no one else gets more than 1 vote.MaxPB said:
Nah, not a million votes. I think 8m is the absolute minimum. 1m is ~3000 votes in each of 326 seats, or winning 40 seats with 25k votes in each one. I really don't think it would be possible not to win and have 20m votes.weejonnie said:In the UK - a political party could win power by securing 1 million votes - or fail to win power and securing 20 million votes. These are admittedly (nearly) extremes and the most likely scenarios are those where the party wins the popular vote and the election - but this is not guaranteed.
Unlikely scenario, I grant you, but we are becoming increasingly atomized as a society
(BTW this is an interesting pseudoexample of entropy - there are far more random individual results giving the same final result, than random individual results giving an atypical result.
I wonder if anyone has applied the Boltzmann constant to election contests yet.)
Can anyone beat the 4 million UKIP voters for 1 seat?
(The lowest share of the vote to win any seat in a UK election is 24.5% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s. The lowest number will be surely one of the rotten boroughs - Old Sarum or Gatton had 7 voters.)0 -
A ridiculous analogy. Someone who voted for Clinton in a FPTP electoral college system would not have voted for Trump in a FPTP popular vote system. And all the polling shows that AV wouldn't have changed things either.TheWhiteRabbit said:
In my house, when we want to play cards we do this:Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
We deal all four players 13 cards. A nominated person then chooses whether they want to play Sevens (a game where picture cards are generally bad) or Whist (where they are generally good).
Apparently you would have the US do the same - choose the rules after the cards been dealt.0 -
Mr. Herdson, just shy, if you take the Crisis starting with the death of Alexander Severus (235).
But only if you discount the Empire in exile and the Empire following its restoration.0 -
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.SouthamObserver said:
I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).0 -
Possibly Matt Oczkowski and Cambridge Analytica:glw said:One of the surprising things about the election is that it seems that those Trump rallies were well chosen, so somebody in his campaign knew what they were doing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right
But maybe it was just fortuitous.0 -
And of course the EU would never dream of "cooking the books" would they?Scott_P said:@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAK: UKIP misspent almost half a million of EU funding on electioneering, and to boost their Brexit campaign - EU audit @SkyNews NEXT.
0 -
We should allow Californians to bet on the result. Bettors waiting to get paid out are the only people who still care!Pulpstar said:
California would count quicker though if their votes mattered. Like anyone with a deadline.Lennon said:
Technically December 19th (that's when the Electoral College meets to cast its votes) </pedant >MarkHopkins said:Pulpstar said:God Help the USA if ever they have to wait for California to count its votes.
Don't worry. They would have until Jan 20th...0 -
Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/7992168085281505280 -
Here is a comparison of schedules of Obama 2008, Clinton 2016, and Trump 2016:SouthamObserver said:I'd be very surprised if Clinton spent a lot of time in either California or New York. She's now more than a million votes ahead of Trump. Just think of how big the lead would be if she had been a good candidate.
Clinton campaign schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clintoncal0816.html
August 18 - New York, NY
August 19 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 20 - Nantucket, MA, Martha's Vineyard, MA
August 21 - Provincetown, MA, Osterville, MA
August 22 - Beverly Hills, CA
August 23 - Los Angeles, CA, Laguna Beach, CA, Piedmont, CA
August 24 - Redwood City, CA, Los Altos, CA, Woodside, CA
August 25 - Reno, NV
August 26 - None
August 27 - White Plains, NY
August 28 - Sag Harbor, NY, Southampton, NY, Bridgehampton, NY
August 29 - East Hampton, NY, Quogue, NY
August 30 - Sagaponack, NY, North Haven, NY
August 31 - Cincinnati, OH
September 1 - None
September 2 - None
September 3 - None
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Hampton, IL
September 6 - Tampa, FL
September 7 - New York, NY
September 8 - Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO
September 9 - New York, NY
September 10 - None
September 11 - New York, NY, Chappaqua, NY
September 12 - Chappaqua, NY
September 13 - Chappaqua, NY
September 14 - Chappaqua, NY
September 15 - Greensboro, NC, Washington, DC
September 16 - Washington, DC, New York, NY
September 17 - Washington, DC
September 18 - None
September 19 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 20 - None
September 21 - Orlando, FL
September 22 - Chappaqua, NY
September 23 - Rye Brook, NY
September 24 - Rye Brook, NY
September 25 - New York, NY, Rye Brook, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Raleigh, NC
September 28 - Durham, NH, Boston, MA
September 29 - Des Moines, IA, Chicago, IL
September 30 - Fort Pierce, FL, Coral Springs, FL, Miami Beach, FL
Look at all of the Clinton visits to safe Dem states. Useless campaign.
0 -
This was Obama's schedule in the same period in 2008:
https://www2.gwu.edu/~action/2008/obamacal0808.html
August 18 - Albuquerque, NM
August 19 - Orlando, FL, Raleigh, NC
August 20 - Greensboro, NC, Martinsville, VA, Danville, VA, Lynchburg, VA
August 21 - Richmond, VA, Chester, VA, Petersburg, VA, Emporia, VA, Chesapeake, VA
August 22 - Chicago, IL
August 23 - Springfield, IL
August 24 - Eau Claire, WI
August 25 - Davenport, IA, Kansas City, MO
August 26 - Kansas City, MO
August 27 - Billings, MT, Denver, CO
August 28 - Denver, CO
August 29 - Monaca, PA, Aliquippa, PA, Beaver, PA
August 30 - Boardman, OH, Cleveland, OH, Marengo, OH, Dublin, OH
August 31 - Lima, OH, Toledo, OH, Hamilton, IN, Battle Creek, MI
September 1 - Detroit, MI, Monroe, MI, Milwaukee, WI
September 2 - Chicago, IL
September 3 - New Philadelphia, OH, Dillonvale, OH
September 4 - York, PA, Columbia, PA, Lancaster, PA
September 5 - Duryea, PA, Wyoming, PA, Middletown, NJ
September 6 - Terre Haute, IN
September 7 - Chicago, IL
September 8 - Flint, MI, Farmington Hills, MI
September 9 - Riverside, OH, Abingdon, VA, Lebanon, VA
September 10 - Norfolk, VA, New York, NY, Washington, DC
September 11 - Harlem, NY, New York, NY
September 12 - Dover, NH, Hopkinton, NH, Concord, NH
September 13 - Manchester, NH
September 14 - Chicago, IL
September 15 - Grand Junction, CO, Pueblo, CO
September 16 - Golden, CO, Beverly Hills, CA
September 17 - Elko, NV, Las Vegas, NV
September 18 - Albuquerque, NM, Bernalillo, NM, Española, NM, Albuquerque, NM
September 19 - Coral Gables, FL
September 20 - Daytona Beach, FL, Jacksonville, FL
September 21 - Charlotte, NC
September 22 - Green Bay, WI, Chicago, IL
September 23 - Clearwater, FL
September 24 - Clearwater, FL, Dunedin, FL
September 25 - Clearwater, FL, Washington, DC
September 26 - Oxford, MS
September 27 - Greensboro, NC, Fredericksburg, VA, Washington, DC
September 28 - Detroit, MI
September 29 - Westminster, CO
September 30 - Reno, NV0 -
Trump's schedule:
http://www.p2016.org/trump/trumpcal0916.html
August 18 - Mooresville, NC, Statesville, NC, Charlotte, NC
August 19 - Baton Rouge, LA, Dimondale, MI, Minneapolis, MN
August 20 - New York, NY, Fredericksburg, VA
August 21 - Betminster, NJ
August 22 - Akron, OH
August 23 - Fort Worth, TX, Austin, TX
August 24 - Tampa, FL, Jackson, MS
August 25 - New York, NY, Manchester, NH, Aspen, CO
August 26 - Las Vegas, NV, Stateline, NV
August 27 - Des Moines, IA
August 28 - Bedminster, NJ
August 29 - Woodside, CA
August 30 - Tulare, CA, Everett, WA
August 31 - Mexico City, Phoenix, AZ
September 1 - Cincinnati, OH, Wilmington, OH, New York, NY
September 2 - Philadelphia, PA
September 3 - Detroit, MI
September 4 - None
September 5 - Cleveland, OH, Youngstown, OH
September 6 - Virginia Beach, VA, Greenville, NC
September 7 - Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY
September 8 - Cleveland, OH
September 9 - Washington, DC, Pensacola, FL
September 10 - St. Louis, MO
September 11 - New York, NY
September 12 - Baltimore, MD, Dundalk, MD, Asheville, NC
September 13 - Des Moines, IA, Aston, PA
September 14 - Flint, MI, Canton, OH
September 15 - New York, NY, Laconia, NH
September 16 - Washington, DC, Miami, FL
September 17 - Houston, TX, Norman, OK, Colorado Springs, CO
September 18 - None
September 19 - Fort Myers, FL, New York, NY
September 20 - High Point, NC, Greensboro, NC, Kenansville, NC
September 21 - Clev. Heights, OH, Toledo, OH, Dayton, OH
September 22 - Pittsburgh, PA, Philadelphia, PA, Chester Township, PA
September 23 - New York, NY
September 24 - New York, NY, Roanoke, VA
September 25 - New York, NY
September 26 - Hempstead, NY
September 27 - Miami, FL, Longwood, FL, Melbourne, FL
September 28 - Bollingbrook, IL, Council Bluffs, IA, Waukesha, WI
September 29 - Bedford, NH
September 30 - Grand Rapids, MI, Novi, MI, Detroit, MI0 -
That would a mighty Govt. windfall in lost deposits....Charles said:
Surely in theory you could win with 652? 2 votes in each of 326 constituencies no one else gets more than 1 vote.MaxPB said:
Nah, not a million votes. I think 8m is the absolute minimum. 1m is ~3000 votes in each of 326 seats, or winning 40 seats with 25k votes in each one. I really don't think it would be possible not to win and have 20m votes.weejonnie said:In the UK - a political party could win power by securing 1 million votes - or fail to win power and securing 20 million votes. These are admittedly (nearly) extremes and the most likely scenarios are those where the party wins the popular vote and the election - but this is not guaranteed.
Unlikely scenario, I grant you, but we are becoming increasingly atomized as a society0 -
Mr. Sandpit, sorry, my wording was imprecise. I meant, how do we have a special £100bn black hole if our economy has been growing as or better than expected?
0 -
Bernie Sanders never found himself in Trump's cross-hairs. He would have had the same problem as Clinton of piling up most of his votes where he didn't need them. It's only in the rust belt where he possibly could have made a difference, but Trump would have been fighting a different campaign.Sandpit said:
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.0 -
But UKIP would.GIN1138 said:
And of course the EU would never dream of "cooking the books" would they?Scott_P said:@DMcCaffreySKY: BREAK: UKIP misspent almost half a million of EU funding on electioneering, and to boost their Brexit campaign - EU audit @SkyNews NEXT.
0 -
Jesus Christ.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/799216808528150528
They are replacing no policy with crap policy. Have they even thought that through?
The WHOLE OF THE UK becomes one enormous closed shop.0 -
Michael Graydon, former head of the British air force, says "If the US leaves NATO, it would be absolutely disastrous and just what Vladimir Putin would like. [That's it. Present it as a country against a person.] If a situation occurs in the Baltic where we need to take a firm stance, the credibility of this would be lacking without the US. ["Firm stance" in a "situation" is an unusual way of saying "war".]
In other words, oh please can the US stay in NATO because Britain can't fight a war against Russia on its own.
Riga and Tallinn may already be majority Russian, given the exodus.
British military bosses seem much more willing to "defend" the Baltic region than the many Latvians, Lithuanians, and to a lesser extent Estonians, do who are already in Britain and who probably aren't going to rush back to their homelands if "a situation occurs".
0 -
It is a forecast for the years when we've left the EU. Apparently leaving the EU is bad for tax revenues.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, sorry, my wording was imprecise. I meant, how do we have a special £100bn black hole if our economy has been growing as or better than expected?
0 -
All you can do is be sanguine at the current behavior of the media. If you essentially go into the "news" with the idea that you are watching a comedy and Faisal is playing jester in chief, it's much easier to cope with.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky News has been my wife and my main source of news but since Brexit and especially the election of Trump they seem to have had a collective breakdown on balanced reporting to the point we are switching more and more to the BBC as they do seem to be more balanced.
Faisal Islam's reporting is just so pro EU it is comical and today Sarah Jane Mee went off the scale of hectoring Liz Truss to the point that Liz Truss could not get a hearing and it was all about Mee. I share the general opinion that Liz Truss is a poor appointment but that does not excuse the tone of Mee's interviewing technique.
We cling to the hope that so many on Sky and their heads come to the realisation that they need to report fairly, by all means critise Brexit and Trump where it is fair but also provide a balance when there are pro Brexit and even Trump stories.
At times it does get too much though. I had to turn off Question Time with that mad American woman last week.
But pointing and laughing at the rubbish that accounts for 90% of "news" is the best approach.0 -
Current growth isn't necessarily predictive of future growth. As Robert has pointed out on so many occasions, business investment accounts for 15-17% of GDP in the country, if that were to fall by even 5% it would lead to a period of slower growth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, sorry, my wording was imprecise. I meant, how do we have a special £100bn black hole if our economy has been growing as or better than expected?
0 -
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
Trump's "visit" strategy always looked eminently sensible to me.Richard_Nabavi said:
Possibly Matt Oczkowski and Cambridge Analytica:glw said:One of the surprising things about the election is that it seems that those Trump rallies were well chosen, so somebody in his campaign knew what they were doing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right
But maybe it was just fortuitous.0 -
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0 -
So, it's OK to use 'denier' for a Remainer?Sandpit said:
The remoaners and deniers writing for the FT.Morris_Dancer said:Where's this report 'Brexit' black hole of £100bn come from, if the economy's been growing ahead of forecast?
Right, Climate Change sceptics back to Climate Change deniers from now on.0 -
Indeed. National polls which are turning out to have been quite accurate after all as the count continues. And polls asking two different questions of the same people, allowing an accurate picture to be formed of how votes would have been switched with only two candidates on the ballot.MaxPB said:
Polls. Sure.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Actually, it is possible, because many national polls conducted parallel polls with and without Johnson/Stein on the ballot. And Clinton generally did as well or better in a race with Trump alone.MaxPB said:
Again, how many GOP voters went for Johnson in safe red/blue states that would have voted for Trump if it were a popular vote race rather than EC race? It is impossible to say that a race based on the PV would have resulted in a Clinton victory. If anything this is incredibly damning of her campaign which concentrated on urban NY and CA, places where she was going to win anyway.Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
Your comments on the limitations of the Clinton campaign are very much besides the point (not that she did concentrate on NY and CA).0 -
It's a wonk (sic) policy.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Jesus Christ.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/799216808528150528
They are replacing no policy with crap policy. Have they even thought that through?
The WHOLE OF THE UK becomes one enormous closed shop.0 -
We don't. It's all in the minds of the writers.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, sorry, my wording was imprecise. I meant, how do we have a special £100bn black hole if our economy has been growing as or better than expected?
0 -
I broadly agree, but that's a different issue than the Presidential Election. Americans rightly or wrongly seem to think that the Founding Fathers perfected government and are disinclined to change it.SouthamObserver said:What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.
0 -
We don't know what levels of turnout by party would have been like, if the US were treated as a single constituency, nor do we know if supporters of Johnson and McMullin would have supported Trump in that situation.Wulfrun_Phil said:
A ridiculous analogy. Someone who voted for Clinton in a FPTP electoral college system would not have voted for Trump in a FPTP popular vote system. And all the polling shows that AV wouldn't have changed things either.TheWhiteRabbit said:
In my house, when we want to play cards we do this:Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
We deal all four players 13 cards. A nominated person then chooses whether they want to play Sevens (a game where picture cards are generally bad) or Whist (where they are generally good).
Apparently you would have the US do the same - choose the rules after the cards been dealt.0 -
Look at Trump's schedule, so much of it was in hostile territory, just like Obama in 2008. He was changing people's minds with his mega rallies and turning 90/10 losses into 80/20 losses in hostile counties and energising the rural areas as well which went from 55/45 victories to 70/30 victories. If anyone still believes that Trump doesn't have political nous after this election then they haven't been paying attention.Pulpstar said:
Trump's "visit" strategy always looked eminently sensible to me.Richard_Nabavi said:
Possibly Matt Oczkowski and Cambridge Analytica:glw said:One of the surprising things about the election is that it seems that those Trump rallies were well chosen, so somebody in his campaign knew what they were doing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/trump-s-data-team-saw-a-different-america-and-they-were-right
But maybe it was just fortuitous.0 -
Denier is a unit of fabric density in tights.logical_song said:
So, it's OK to use 'denier' for a Remainer?Sandpit said:
The remoaners and deniers writing for the FT.Morris_Dancer said:Where's this report 'Brexit' black hole of £100bn come from, if the economy's been growing ahead of forecast?
Right, Climate Change sceptics back to Climate Change deniers from now on.
"Climate change denier" is a propaganda term that conveys the idea that the fact that the climate is changing implies that the change must be caused by humans. But nobody who denies that the change is caused by humans denies that the change is occurring. The climate has always changed, it always will, and to believe that humans can stop it changing is insane.0 -
Do they have to be a member before they come here? Of a British union? What if there is no applicable union for them? Is this not a breach of Article 11? Is it not discriminatory if people are coming from countries without a history of trade unions? Do they have to actually the support the union? What about the cost of joining?TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a wonk (sic) policy.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Jesus Christ.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/799216808528150528
They are replacing no policy with crap policy. Have they even thought that through?
The WHOLE OF THE UK becomes one enormous closed shop.
please tell me he's been misquoted.0 -
Mr. Song, dislike use of that term (denier) generally, to be honest.
Mr. Max, indeed, although recent GDP forecasts have been as accurate as a blind archer...
Mr. Eagles, it may be, in the short term. Then again, many in the Establishment thought we simply must join the euro too.0 -
Even if you thought that was a reasonable policy, there is a massive bloody problem with it that ought to be obvious to any sensible person.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/7992168085281505280 -
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.Sean_F said:
We don't know what levels of turnout by party would have been like, if the US were treated as a single constituency, nor do we know if supporters of Johnson and McMullin would have supported Trump in that situation.Wulfrun_Phil said:
A ridiculous analogy. Someone who voted for Clinton in a FPTP electoral college system would not have voted for Trump in a FPTP popular vote system. And all the polling shows that AV wouldn't have changed things either.TheWhiteRabbit said:
In my house, when we want to play cards we do this:Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
We deal all four players 13 cards. A nominated person then chooses whether they want to play Sevens (a game where picture cards are generally bad) or Whist (where they are generally good).
Apparently you would have the US do the same - choose the rules after the cards been dealt.0 -
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0 -
Larry Elder
DNC Chair Candidate Keith Ellison Compared GWBush To Hitler--So What Else Is New?
By Larry Elder
November 17,... https://t.co/2pYgQoN7dJ0 -
Apparently that's what he said.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Do they have to be a member before they come here? Of a British union? What if there is no applicable union for them? Is this not a breach of Article 11? Is it not discriminatory if people are coming from countries without a history of trade unions? Do they have to actually the support the union? What about the cost of joining?TheScreamingEagles said:
It's a wonk (sic) policy.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Jesus Christ.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/799216808528150528
They are replacing no policy with crap policy. Have they even thought that through?
The WHOLE OF THE UK becomes one enormous closed shop.
please tell me he's been misquoted.
But he took no questions after making his speech, so the journos couldn't ask him questions on said policy.0 -
Yes, but in the rust belt 1% or 2% was all it took for Trump to win. Trump's narrative of draining the swamp wouldn't have been as effective when running against another outsider. He only won because enough believed in Crooked Hillary to either vote Trump or sit on their hands - in the key swing states.williamglenn said:
Bernie Sanders never found himself in Trump's cross-hairs. He would have had the same problem as Clinton of piling up most of his votes where he didn't need them. It's only in the rust belt where he possibly could have made a difference, but Trump would have been fighting a different campaign.Sandpit said:
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.0 -
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0 -
Boo, I want House of Lords reform
@steve_hawkes: Govt ditches plans for Lords reform - suggests they have more of a Brexit plan than we think. This can only be about Article 500 -
*Chortle*
@steve_hawkes: Doubling Down: "Deloitte UK says it will 'reluctantly' move work out of UK if Government limits its ability to sponsor foreign workers."0 -
What that you could just set up a UNWM? (Union of Non-working Migrants)?glw said:
Even if you thought that was a reasonable policy, there is a massive bloody problem with it that ought to be obvious to any sensible person.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/7992168085281505280 -
Mr. Herdson, quite. Lady Hale seems prejudiced and meddlesome.
Anyway, I must go and perambulate in the dreary rain. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised? Clearly, we are not burning sufficient quantities of coal.0 -
Wulfrun_Phil said:
What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.Sean_F said:
We don't know what levels of turnout by party would have been like, if the US were treated as a single constituency, nor do we know if supporters of Johnson and McMullin would have supported Trump in that situation.Wulfrun_Phil said:
A ridiculous analogy. Someone who voted for Clinton in a FPTP electoral college system would not have voted for Trump in a FPTP popular vote system. And all the polling shows that AV wouldn't have changed things either.TheWhiteRabbit said:
In my house, when we want to play cards we do this:Wulfrun_Phil said:
OK, if you want to make comparisons with Bush.weejonnie said:
How can you become Less Popular as the vote is counted? Surely every vote for you makes you more popular.tlg86 said:
It must really nark Republican grandees that Trump was able to win where it mattered.SouthamObserver said:If he becomes even more unpopular than he is currently (1 million + behind in the popular vote now) then Republicans in the legislature are going to start to get nervous.
Trump 2016: 60,913,096 votes (nyt - still to call Michigan BTW)
That is 10 million MORE than George W Bush in 2000
Bush in 2000 was 543,000 behind Gore in the popular vote and 15 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 is going to be upwards of 2 million behind Clinton in the popular vote and yet likely to end up 74 votes ahead in the Electoral College.
2016 is a failure of epic proportions on any measure of legitimacy or democratic fairness. Ironic that it happened to the benefit of a candidate who claimed the system was fixed against him.
We deal all four players 13 cards. A nominated person then chooses whether they want to play Sevens (a game where picture cards are generally bad) or Whist (where they are generally good).
Apparently you would have the US do the same - choose the rules after the cards been dealt.
Are you equally upset at the lack of MPs that UKIP received at the 2015 election, compared to the amount of votes?
0 -
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
0 -
Please, don't fall for the media hype, look at her quotes in their entirety, she explained how both sides would approach it.david_herdson said:
Going by Lady Hale's comments, at least some of the Supreme Court here seems to have the same ambition.Sean_F said:
It's wrong that the Supreme Court has the political power that it has, and it's wrong that anyone can appoint political partisans to it, but we are where we are.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
Oddly, the Leave supporting media focused on one portion of her comments.0 -
Labour's extinction event planning is well on course....glw said:
Even if you thought that was a reasonable policy, there is a massive bloody problem with it that ought to be obvious to any sensible person.TheScreamingEagles said:Labour are going to win a general election with policies like this
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/7992168085281505280 -
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
0 -
Before anyone else comments upon Lady Hale, read her speech first
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-161109.pdf0 -
'Commie Sanders' would never have won a national election.Sandpit said:
Yes, but in the rust belt 1% or 2% was all it took for Trump to win. Trump's narrative of draining the swamp wouldn't have been as effective when running against another outsider. He only won because enough believed in Crooked Hillary to either vote Trump or sit on their hands - in the key swing states.williamglenn said:
Bernie Sanders never found himself in Trump's cross-hairs. He would have had the same problem as Clinton of piling up most of his votes where he didn't need them. It's only in the rust belt where he possibly could have made a difference, but Trump would have been fighting a different campaign.Sandpit said:
If the Democrats had had a good candidate they'd have won the election! Bernie Sanders was appealing to the same disaffected as voted for Trump, he'd have held many of the rust belt states that Clinton lost.
Remember that the key swing states turned out to be different than the ones people expected them to be. With Sanders on the ticket the map would have just looked different, but probably a bigger win for Trump.0 -
The popular vote in the US has no value whatsoever. It's not a metric of winning.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
It is a metric of whining.0 -
In the context of the constant barrage of media articles, from both the press and television media, desperate to convince the public that they didn't actually vote to leave the EU, yes it is starting to become appropriate.logical_song said:
So, it's OK to use 'denier' for a Remainer?Sandpit said:
The remoaners and deniers writing for the FT.Morris_Dancer said:Where's this report 'Brexit' black hole of £100bn come from, if the economy's been growing ahead of forecast?
Right, Climate Change sceptics back to Climate Change deniers from now on.
The government has made it clear that it is working on the EU exit plan and will commence negotiations early next year. Asking the same questions every day between now and then isn't going to change the government's position.0 -
So that's what that dodgy "memo" was all about?TheScreamingEagles said:*Chortle*
@steve_hawkes: Doubling Down: "Deloitte UK says it will 'reluctantly' move work out of UK if Government limits its ability to sponsor foreign workers."
Remember EVERYONE has an agenda.
0 -
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.
0 -
You have a limited future in the hosiery industry then...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Song, dislike use of that term (denier) generally, to be honest.
0 -
It's likely arguing that the Conservatives didn't really win the 2015 election because only 38% voted for them.MaxPB said:
In the national vote tracker, "Others" are up to almost 7m. How many of those Johnson voters would the GOP have squeezed in a PV based election? It is impossible to know. Trump lose Orange County for heaven's sake, if it were a PV based election that would never have happened as the traditional GOP base would have turned out for Trump. They voted Clinton/Johnson in OC because CA is safe Dem, they could register a protest without affecting the national result. In an election where there are no safe states the nature of the race is completely different, those protest votes in traditional GOP areas would have been non-existent.Wulfrun_Phil said:What we know is that Clinton is going to be a stonking 2 million + votes ahead, and yet I'm seeing the kind of kites being flown that would be appropriate only in the context of a result like Florida 2000. Get a sense of perspective.
0 -
I would love for the SCOTUS to move to 10 year terms with term limits. Not elected, but then it would allow for a renewal of the SCOTUS more often than just waiting for them to die off or get bored and retire.SouthamObserver said:
I am not saying Clinton won the election. She lost. But she has comfortably won the popular vote. Trump, who lost it, now has immense power to shape the lives of all Americans for the next 20 to 30 years. It is what it is, but I am not sure it is fair.weejonnie said:
But the loser (Clinton) has no real power. As has been mentioned here, the candidates' plan of campaign was based on the ECV available in each state - and so campaigned where the greatest reward/ effort was obtainable. They would have campaigned differently and the voters (especially the non-voters) would have voted differently as a result. So you just can't apply a 'I won the popular vote so I won the election' argument when manifestly the conclusion does not follow on from the premise.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.
As an example: Trump won states by less than Clinton (or Obama) won. This could be because Republicans in California (knowing that the state was lost) didn't bother turning out as enthusiastically. They may well have done on a popular vote election. We just don't know.0 -
The Electoral College is the test of winning or losing. It was not a secret. Your posting has become increasingly hysterical.SouthamObserver said:
He lost the popular vote. American voters rejected him. The presidency is not a game.matt said:
He's not a loser though, is he (other than in your world). He's a winner by the rules of the game.SouthamObserver said:
What's wrong is that Trump now gets to mould the Supreme Court as a profoundly conservative body, even though he is trailing Clinton by so many votes. The electoral college is what it is and does sort of make sense in the kind of federation that the US is. What may be less fair is the power that someone who loses the popular vote gets to perhaps profoundly affect the lives of all Americans not only for the next four years but quite possibly for the next 20 or even 30. It's a hell of a lot of power for a loser to have.glw said:
I know one thing, if Hilary had won on the same basis Trump won I doubt we would hear a peep from Democrats about how the "system is wrong".david_herdson said:The evidence from SV elections is that AV results would not be greatly different from FPTP.
PR is a whole different ballgame, as would be a move from the Electoral College to a national vote in the US.0
This discussion has been closed.