politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton is being urged to challenge the results in three key s
Comments
-
That said, people live longer if at 60 people decide to do parish council work they could have decades of good community work to keep them busy.kle4 said:
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.Monksfield said:
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
Indeed he did, as he did with all the Schoolz 'n' 'Ospitals that he built on the PFI never-never.MaxPB said:
Gordon Brown did it all the time.Sandpit said:Stupid headline of the day award to the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/philip-hammond-invest-1billion-welfare-ease-impact-george-osbornes/
Would they like to explain how increasing the welfare budget can ever possibly be described as 'investment'?
Doesn't make it right though, and poor show to the Telegraph for using language like that for the headline of what's currently their front page story.0 -
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.kle4 said:
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.Monksfield said:
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
This is such great trolling and a much needed slap to identity warriors
"Yiannopoulos started a college scholarship fund exclusively for white men, initially as a joke, 'something that would wind up social-justice warriors,' he acknowledged.
It is very real now, however. The Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant has $125,000 in funds, collected from private donors, which will be disbursed in $2,500 grants in 2017—2018 exclusively to 'white men who wish to pursue their post-secondary education on equal footing with their female, queer and ethnic-minority classmates'.
He is trying to rebalance a system that is heavily weighted in favor of those who seek to classify themselves as minorities or 'special' or 'different'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3960800/KATIE-HOPKINS-College-liberals-think-people-voted-Trump-Brexit-dumb-letting-brainwash-society-s-stupid.html#ixzz4Qos6w41b0 -
I think they'll get fewer though as the baby boomers move up the age demographic. As an example, I've been a parish councillor for 13 years. I was the youngest when I joined and I still am, now at 50.kle4 said:
That said, people live longer if at 60 people decide to do parish council work they could have decades of good community work to keep them busy.kle4 said:
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.Monksfield said:
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.0 -
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .0 -
Thanks for the very good explanation. I was a trustee myself and I know about the issues in the 80's and 90's,, I forget the terminology now MFR seems to ring a bell (minimum funding rate) and this proved to be disastrous, but in those days schemes were often classed as overfunded and pension "holidays" from employer conts was common. I seem to recall that schemes were not allowed to be less than 95% funded NOR more than 105%.DavidL said:
The problem, from my own experience as a trustee, is the timescales of the problem. Pension fund deficits have soared in recent years on the back of falling bond rates. This has, however, been a very slow moving car crash. Every year for the last 4 my closed fund has had additional funds put into it, the funds invested have done well and...the deficit has gone up.SquareRoot said:
Hang on a sec.. Why is Green supposedly offering 250 or 300 MILLION.. He sold the business for a quid.. He must have known the state of affairs.Morris_Dancer said:?
The recent uptick in bond rates promises some relief from that and the fact remains that even the BHS pension deficit might well disappear completely if bond rates returned to something like "normal". The prospects of pre-2007 normality returning, however, are still disappearing over the horizon.
The problem is accentuated for a pension scheme like BHS. In the latter years insufficient money was being put into the scheme but that is because the business was strapped for cash. Did they really want to sack people and close stores to generate some cash to put into the Scheme? How would the current employees, not in the scheme feel about that? Green was not taking cash out in those years but he had done earlier when the pension liability probably did not exist.
I think this is much messier than it looks and evidence of wrongdoing is going to be hard to find. Part of the problem was undoubtedly the model of running businesses lean with lots of debt that became so popular in the 1980s onwards. Basically such aggressive balance sheet tactics meant that the risk of something going wrong was not on the owners of the business but on someone else, in this case the pensioners.
Things should have been left well alone, meddling always causes trouble, esp if the meddlers don't know what they are doing.0 -
Hold on, this would be the supporters of the Trump who told John McCain he wasn't a war hero because he got captured?PlatoSaid said:I can't think of a picture that demonstrates the yawning gulf between Hillary and Trump supporters. Apparently Tom Hanks and another celebrity got this highest civilian honour.
Shteve
A war hero has to stand there and hold a medal for Ellen DeGeneres. https://t.co/RShhzQJNfj0 -
People claim we need more young people in local government, I was merely saying you do get them. Seeing who sticks around is also the key point - being a cllr is pretty thankless unless you can be a cabinet figure, so those who get in early and stay in, are presumably the ones who actually care about the work rather than just wannabe MPs.Jonathan said:
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.kle4 said:
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.Monksfield said:
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
There's rumours abound of electoral college delegates being targeted ahead of their meeting, in a last attempt to stop them confirming Trump as president. Legal but undemocratic, very much like that anti-Brexit campaigners in the UK.0 -
Facts are facts, just accept it.Moses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Don't try to spin.0 -
Ellen's achievements seem distinctly underwhelming compared to the others.FrancisUrquhart said:
I have to say I find the reports on this rather depressing...PlatoSaid said:I can't think of a picture that demonstrates the yawning gulf between Hillary and Trump supporters. Apparently Tom Hanks and another celebrity got this highest civilian honour.
Shteve
A war hero has to stand there and hold a medal for Ellen DeGeneres. https://t.co/RShhzQJNfj
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38073567
The headline is all about the massive sacrifice Ellen made coming out as gay, but you have to get way down the report to realise the likes of Bill Gates for his massive work for charity plus people like Richard Garwin and Frank Gehry were also honoured.
Richard f##king Garwin gets an "also mention"...go look him up kids!
As well as his famed work on the H-Bomb, he advised every president in his lifetime, and a few other bits and pieces...
"Over the course of more than four decades at IBM Research, he invented pioneering techniques in nuclear magnetic resonance, used in today’s magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. He carried out groundbreaking work in superconducting computers and silicon integrated circuit technology. He was integral to the development of laser printers and displays, gesture and gaze-controlled input to computers and devices, touchscreen monitors and more."0 -
Ah. I see. Adult behaviour is to both claim and deny that US Presidents are elected democratically in the same post. I think I'll stay a toddlerMoses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
0 -
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.FrancisUrquhart said:
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.PlatoSaid said:Trevor Timm
Several Facebook employees have left the company in response to the creation of censorship software made for China https://t.co/4y0Z9TcuRY https://t.co/CEMdIaaVef
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.0 -
Nice try at a diversion. Stay a toddler.Innocent_Abroad said:
Ah. I see. Adult behaviour is to both claim and deny that US Presidents are elected democratically in the same post. I think I'll stay a toddlerMoses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .0 -
Clinton should see if Gina Miller can fly out to America and try to overturn the election result ensure the correct process is followed.0
-
Additionally, no one joins a parish council as a career stepping stone, they are too minor and parochial. Outside of towns, I'm given to understand very few have party candidates stand as well, so not really for political nerds either. Unitary district or council level maybe.kle4 said:
People claim we need more young people in local government, I was merely saying you do get them. Seeing who sticks around is also the key point - being a cllr is pretty thankless unless you can be a cabinet figure, so those who get in early and stay in, are presumably the ones who actually care about the work rather than just wannabe MPs.Jonathan said:
There is no shortage of political nerds / wannabes who will take their first steps on the political career ladder. Not sure that's a sound basis for good local government.kle4 said:
At my regional council in the last 5 by elections the winners have been 3 in late 30s to early 40, young for councils, and 2 in their 20s. It will be interesting to see who lasts - from what I can tell, If you make it past a first term and restand, you tend to be the sort who will do it for decades. Parish level has it worse, but then it's harder to even get contested elections there.Monksfield said:
I think it's a generational thing. Younger people are happy to sign up to things but unwilling to give up time. Based on my experience as a parish councillor I anticipate a huge crisis looming in lower tier government. Partly because the scale of responsibilities now being devolved from the UA makes it such a commitment and partly because as far as I can see nobody under the age of 60 wants to do it.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?Moses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .0 -
Fascinating eve of poll article about the recent evolution of political discourse in America leading to Trump and how the press missed it.
http://pressthink.org/2016/11/miss-bigger-missed-story-final-reflections-trump-press-2016/
0 -
''The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.''
They are also threatened by the numbers. Breitbart boasted of 41million unique hits over the US election campaign.
What if the alt right sites started to capture a larger share of the shrinking pool of advertising revenues?0 -
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
0 -
Yes......they are and you lost and so did the democrats under the agreed system. a system entirely accepted by you and others while they were ahead.logical_song said:
Facts are facts, just accept it.Moses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
Don't try to spin.
This is just the final few tail flaps of the landed fish. It's done and ready for the fat fryer.
Have a nice day......0 -
That's exactly what the Corbynites say. Trump and his supporters live in a similar echo chamber.PlatoSaid said:
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.FrancisUrquhart said:
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.PlatoSaid said:Trevor Timm
Several Facebook employees have left the company in response to the creation of censorship software made for China https://t.co/4y0Z9TcuRY https://t.co/CEMdIaaVef
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.0 -
Desperate stuff, reminds me of those who tried to claim that Obama wasn't a natural born US citizen and ineligible for office and the antics of some remaindermen over here.
Once Trump is sworn in on 20th of January, that's it, game over.0 -
She led Obama by 270,000 votes.PlatoSaid said:
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?Moses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .0 -
I don't suppose it'll have much impact - but Trumpers are running a viewers boycott of CNN now. Leftists are bullying advertising aggregators to drop Breitbart - one has already done so App something.taffys said:''The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.''
They are also threatened by the numbers. Breitbart boasted of 41million unique hits over the US election campaign.
What if the alt right sites started to capture a larger share of the shrinking pool of advertising revenues?
I said it weeks ago, but this is a massive culture war between left and right - and isn't going to go away. American Right activists are now using all the dirty tricks of the Left - without the thuggery.0 -
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.0 -
Even more than I thought - it's so perfectSean_F said:
She led Obama by 270,000 votes.PlatoSaid said:
I may be mistaken - but didn't Obama win the EC, and Hillary the popular vote in their primary stand-off?Moses_ said:
You lost. Get over it already.logical_song said:
"Legal loophole" = Law of the land.Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the side, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
"Clear will of the people" = Very close result, less than 4% in it.
A clear view of the people is 50% + 1 vote, not some arbitrary % position determined by an embittered loser which is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001% within the zone they can can claim they woz robbed.
HRC won the popular vote so what that's not how it's measured it's completed using an electoral college process everyone accepted. Democrats in the US and Remainers here were cock a hoop while winning under that system but not when they lost.
For the record as I have constantly stated before, during and after the ref if Remain had won by 50+1 that for me was democratic will and we should engage 100% with Schengen and the euro. Wouldn't have liked it but at least I am not 3 and adult enough to to accept a democratic vote .
0 -
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
No point in your state doing that until New York and California do it too. Well, not unless you want to guarantee Democrat Presidents for the next few decades.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
And if they do, you might as well abandon the Electoral College. And have the election fought in a dozen states and the rest forgotten. So no, I can't see it being a popular cause.0 -
0
-
90.7% of new-joiner Labour members don't canvass? What do they think the Party is, a safe space from voters?Jonathan said:rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
Long term members more likely to be engaged? Who'd have thunk it.
Snowflakes.....0 -
Because candidates spend so much time in North Dakota as is at the moment.MarqueeMark said:
No point in your state doing that until New York and California do it too. Well, not unless you want to guarantee Democrat Presidents for the next few decades.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
And if they do, you might as well abandon the Electoral College. And have the election fought in a dozen states and the rest forgotten. So no, I can't see it being a popular cause.0 -
ICYMI
This is so amusing
Jared Wyand
When the CEO of twitter is trying to delete everyone with an opposing view and accidentally suspends himself
Hang in there @jack https://t.co/nbac9i1YYT
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/techandgadgets/twitter-boss-jack-dorsey-has-his-own-account-suspended-a3402456.html
0 -
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!Pulpstar said:
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.0 -
Mr. Fletcher, sounds a bit like Jeb Bush. Throwing money at the campaigns didn't work for either of them.0
-
The same way I "invested" in a sandwich this morning.Sandpit said:Stupid headline of the day award to the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/philip-hammond-invest-1billion-welfare-ease-impact-george-osbornes/
Would they like to explain how increasing the welfare budget can ever possibly be described as 'investment'?
What rot. An investment is where you put money away in the expectation of receiving more later - the Telegraph are being deliberately thick here.0 -
Money doesn't ALWAYS compensate for character. Of course, Bushes generally would be surprised by this.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fletcher, sounds a bit like Jeb Bush. Throwing money at the campaigns didn't work for either of them.
0 -
Searching for a bingo market for the Autumn Statement and checked the Austrian odds. Hofer is 1.4, Van der Bellen 2.75 [Ladbrokes].
No speech market I can see, as yet.0 -
On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.0
-
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.Lucian_Fletcher said:
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!Pulpstar said:
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.0 -
Good grief. Just catching up on Today and hearing someone comparing inventorying in rentals to a survey in a house sale.
Where do they find these people?0 -
Jeb! was such a lacklustre guy - even if you liked his calm demeanour - he never came across as someone who'd fight for his country. He was Hammond. When Trump nicknamed him 'low energy' it killed him and it framed his whole personality as undynamic/dull/no change/boring.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Fletcher, sounds a bit like Jeb Bush. Throwing money at the campaigns didn't work for either of them.
When the pollsters were capturing massive popular demand for change - it's not surprising that he was the wrong chap in the wrong election.
EDIT - when you need to add a ! to your own name says it all.0 -
Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.0
-
History is written by the winner -- it is only last year we were told big data beat the ground game in GE2015. We must be careful not to take at face value that everything Trump (or the Conservatives or SNP) did led directly to victory.PlatoSaid said:
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.Lucian_Fletcher said:
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!Pulpstar said:
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.0 -
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
0 -
Amazing how alike this campaign has been to the one in "Scandal", where the Republican candidate was elected President on the votes of hacking altering voting machiners in one County of Ohio. Then there was the male candidate in the latest election, who of course was one of those involved setting up the fraud in that state, a "likeness" to Donald.
By the way I just love "Scandal"0 -
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
I can't recall the last time I read a UK newspaper political article beyond a tweeted headline - it's been about a month.0 -
Obama must read pb -- we've mentioned on-and-off over the past decade or more research that found Democrat and Republican voters have not only different opinions (which you'd expect) but also their own facts -- different things they believe to be true.PlatoSaid said:
The totally OTT MSM fuss about supposed 'fake news' - including Obama claiming it swung the election against Hillary tells me they're feeling very threatened.FrancisUrquhart said:
Coming to the rest of the world to ensure nobody gets all those "fake news" posts showing up in their feeds, to ensure the weebles don't vote the wrong way again.PlatoSaid said:Trevor Timm
Several Facebook employees have left the company in response to the creation of censorship software made for China https://t.co/4y0Z9TcuRY https://t.co/CEMdIaaVef
Trump has his POTUS bully-pulpit and a Twitter/Facebook/Instagram account that reaches 25m without a RT. He posted his 100 Day plan on YouTube. He's not playing the MSM game and frankly I don't see why he should after their appalling bias and fearmongering over the last 12+ months.
I don't blame the large chunk of people who've been scared into thinking he's 'literally Hitler'. They've been told it every day for months and months. I think the MSM has been terribly irresponsible. Orson Welles scared many in 1938 with War of the Worlds - imagine that for a whole POTUS election cycle, not just an hour.0 -
The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.0
-
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
0 -
Quite - it's an investment in the future electability of the Conservatives...Pulpstar said:
The same way I "invested" in a sandwich this morning.Sandpit said:Stupid headline of the day award to the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/philip-hammond-invest-1billion-welfare-ease-impact-george-osbornes/
Would they like to explain how increasing the welfare budget can ever possibly be described as 'investment'?
What rot. An investment is where you put money away in the expectation of receiving more later - the Telegraph are being deliberately thick here.0 -
We all have our favourites. Here's a few. I still fondly remember David Rose aka Johann Hari - as told to Thomas Jefferson
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-news-stories-from-the-mainstream-media/0 -
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.Pulpstar said:
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962682/amp/Politico-editor-resigns-calling-baseball-bat-attacks-white-nationalist-leader-posting-home-address-Facebook.html0 -
I think it is outrageous that the British and American mainstream media do not report the news in the way that Plato would like it reported.
Fancy pointing out that Donald Trump is a serial liar, has embraced white supremacists and anti-semites, has sexually assaulted women, openly mocked the disabled and defrauded many thousands of ordinary Americans. It's as if he were running for public office or something. And as for his backing from the Ku Klux Klan? That is not something that anyone should know about.0 -
Mostly not, actually. In the majority of cases, it is moderates who retain control of local and regional party machinery. There are some exceptions - such as Leeds Central - but if you look at recent internal Labour election results in which you need to be in the room to vote the far left is being beaten much more often than it wins.SandyRentool said:
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "
0 -
GOP was in turmoil -- remember Trump beat the GOP establishment as well as Hillary.Pulpstar said:
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
0 -
I would expect more states to engage in voter suppression.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.0 -
There's a study out there on undocumented immigrant participation in elections, I'll try and find it later. At the rare found NV could have been affected by it.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
0 -
Are large numbers of people really committing felonies that would result in deportation if detected, and could be detected by anybody checking their names on a publicly available register? It's hard enough getting people to vote at the best of times, so getting them to put everything on the line for it would be a serious feat of persuasion.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
0 -
The GOP was in turmoil. Trump's data team thought they had lost until Florida came in and they reran their projections with spiked rural turnout and saw they would win.Pulpstar said:
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
What we didn't know was the Dem campaign was fucking attrocious and was failing to address problem states.
Also the Florida chair manager to get some time with Trump post hurricane and convinced him to allocate resources for GOTV which were previously not there.0 -
-
Over 6 mentions is surely free money?Scott_P said:PaddyPower
0 -
Mr. Glenn, maybe. There are alternative forms "our departure from the EU" "following the referendum result" etc etc.0
-
Exact phrase? I'm not so sure.williamglenn said:
Over 6 mentions is surely free money?Scott_P said:PaddyPower
0 -
PlatoSaid said:
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.Pulpstar said:
@JackW Found managed to find a "Politico" article every five minutes going on about how the GOP was in turmoil and how amazing the DEM GOTV was.DecrepitJohnL said:
It's mainly the Democrats who run registration drives, which is because Republicans game the system by making it harder. For all the fuss about voter fraud, there is precious little evidence.MaxPB said:On voter fraud it seems to me that registration is the easiest part of the system to game. In a lot of states all one requires is proof of residency rather than proof of citizenship. I'd venture that this favours the Dems, so if the US was serious about tackling fraud the Dems would be the biggest losers, going by the law of unintended consequences.
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962682/amp/Politico-editor-resigns-calling-baseball-bat-attacks-white-nationalist-leader-posting-home-address-Facebook.html
Woody Allen foresaw the baseball bat on Nazi issue decades ago in the film 'Manhattan':
Isaac Davis [Woody Allen]: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
I guess the difference is Woody didn't publish anyone's actual address.0 -
OT: BBC News site appears to be down. Unusual.0
-
Thanks SO. I was extrapolating from one data point!SouthamObserver said:
Mostly not, actually. In the majority of cases, it is moderates who retain control of local and regional party machinery. There are some exceptions - such as Leeds Central - but if you look at recent internal Labour election results in which you need to be in the room to vote the far left is being beaten much more often than it wins.SandyRentool said:
However, enough of them turn up to the key meetings to get themselves elected as GC delegates where they are able to vote in their preferred candidates as CLP officers.rottenborough said:Completely off topic, but over the last few months there's been the occasional debate on PB over whether the 1000s of new members joining labour are just a load of armchair lefties who never attend a meeting and would rather cut their own arm off than go canvassing.
LSE has some research:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-the-pro-corbyn-surge-in-labours-membership/
A key point is:
"When it comes to offline participation, however, there is a striking difference: new members are plainly not as keen to get stuck in. While a third (31%) of the old members attended a public meeting during the GE campaign, less than a sixth of new members did so during the campaign for the 2016 local/regional/mayoral elections (15%). Although less was presumably at stake in 2016 than 2015, an even wider gap is registered when looking at activities such as leafletting (42.5% vs. 16%), displaying election posters (51% vs 26%) or – most notably of all – canvassing voters (35.7% vs 9.3%). "0 -
Works for me...FeersumEnjineeya said:OT: BBC News site appears to be down. Unusual.
0 -
Ah, back now. Stand down folks.FeersumEnjineeya said:OT: BBC News site appears to be down. Unusual.
0 -
Too late now, in my opinion.Dadge said:The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.
0 -
JosiasJessop said:
Short, succinct and accurate.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Aye, electronic voting is bloody stupid.
However: non-electronic systems can be nearly as bad; that is why we have so many rules about the way they are conducted. I've read reports in the past from other countries of ballot boxes with broken seals being counted; ballot stuffing; of boxes being 'lost'; and the really common one of voter intimidation within the polling station.
And that leaves out all the other ways authoritarian regimes get their way; for instance the Syrian / Egyptian / elsewhere method of 'banning' popular opposition parties. Whilst it may be necessary to occasionally ban parties, it's something that needs doing with care.
BTW, what's the title of your book, when's it due out, and where can I get it from?
They're not connected to the internet but somebody has to make the firmware that goes on them, and that somebody is connected to internet. Juniper firewall firmware was backdoored for years, and that's expensive corporate gear designed by crypto experts, whereas voting machines are pieces of poo made by the lowest politically-connected bidder.tlg86 said:
I'm not particularly tech savvy, but are these voting machines connected to the internet? If they are standalone devices then remote hacking would be rather difficult!foxinsoxuk said:
It is pretty obvious (and something that the alt.right seem surprisingly unbothered by) that Russia attempted to manipulate the presidential election via hacking the DNC, Podesta and also via Wikileaks and Fancy Bears etc. It would not be a great stretch to interfere directly with voting machines. Admiral Rogers of the NSA has openly described the interference as unprecedented:Sandpit said:Morning. Voting machines have a long history of problems, going back to at least 2000 and the debacle in Florida:
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
The newer computer based machines are unreliable, run on old and unpatched platforms, their software isn't open-source, they have open ports on the said, there's no paper audit trail and we have to take the machine's word for the result. That's before we start on the miscalibrated touch screens, badly trained Election Day staff etc.
Even as someone who makes his living from technology, I can see that sometimes a paper-based system is the way to go.
That said, the people in this case need to either present their evidence or shut up. They sound like Remain supporters now desperate to find any legal loophole to avoid the clear will of the people being implemented.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/will-congress-investigate-russian-interference-2016-campaign0 -
Not many comments this morning. Have all the other pb regulars been exposed as Philip Hammond's SpAds?0
-
Dadge said:
The election result certainly makes me uneasy. There's been lots of talk, ever since the GOP skullduggery of 2000, about the tricks they use, or are capable of using, to win elections. So the close wins in the three states should cause a few eyebrows to raise, and the DNC should've launched an investigation immediately. You can guarantee that if the shoe had been on the other foot, the Republican lawyers would've been straight into Lancing.
It's rigged I tell you, it's rigged - said the man with orange hair.0 -
NoDecrepitJohnL said:Not many comments this morning. Have all the other pb regulars been exposed as Philip Hammond's SpAds?
0 -
Just received an e mail from Lord Ashcroft with his analysis on the Presidential election and it absolutely identifies the reasons for the Democrats failure. I would recommend everyone with an interest in both Brexit and the US election reads it. It is titled
'If you don’t listen to the voters, someone else will': the real lesson of Trump0 -
The only Woody Allen film I like is Sleeper. I thought it was well ahead of its time 40yrs ago.Pulpstar said:
In addition to a couple of Poltico journalists exposed via Wikileaks to be brown-nosers who sought copy approval from the DNC, one of their national editors resigned last night for doxxing some very far-right attention seeker and advocating using baseball bats on him.DecrepitJohnL said:
snipMaxPB said:snip
IQ is no measure of someone's commonsense or self-preservation.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962682/amp/Politico-editor-resigns-calling-baseball-bat-attacks-white-nationalist-leader-posting-home-address-Facebook.html
Woody Allen foresaw the baseball bat on Nazi issue decades ago in the film 'Manhattan':
Isaac Davis [Woody Allen]: Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
I guess the difference is Woody didn't publish anyone's actual address.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FRLeYaut3o0 -
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.PlatoSaid said:
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
0 -
What time is the Statement?0
-
12:30Philip_Thompson said:What time is the Statement?
0 -
12.30Philip_Thompson said:What time is the Statement?
0 -
@JoeMurphyLondon: Interesting...No 10 briefed a May quote to Cabinet about the Autumn Statement but not a Chancellor quote. No 10 getting in on the act...0
-
12.30, apparently.Philip_Thompson said:What time is the Statement?
I wonder if Osborne will a) be there, b) make a statement; c) make a supportive statement.0 -
Guess like many Latinos, many Muslims wanted to live in America not where they left after all.
"A poll released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Tuesday reveals president-elect Donald Trump received nearly three times as many Muslim votes as Republican nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.
According to CAIR, “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” an exit poll of more than 2,000 registered Muslim voters found that 13 percent chose Trump as opposed to 4.4 percent for Romney.
“Muslim were more energized and engaged this election than ever before, turning out in record numbers,” CAIR Director of Government Affairs Department Robert McCaw said."
http://www.infowars.com/trump-nearly-triples-number-of-muslim-voters-compared-to-romney/0 -
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.PlatoSaid said:
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
Time will tell which is most correct.0 -
George Osborne @George_Osborne 4h4 hours ago
Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead
PS THERE IS NO MOMEY0 -
The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)PlatoSaid said:
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.Lucian_Fletcher said:
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!Pulpstar said:
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.AlastairMeeks said:The Democrats would do better stressing the popular vote margin if they want to undermine Donald Trump's legitimacy. Though electronic voting gives me the creeps.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
0 -
George Osborne @George_Osborne 4h4 hours agoJosiasJessop said:
12.30, apparently.Philip_Thompson said:What time is the Statement?
I wonder if Osborne will a) be there, b) make a statement; c) make a supportive statement.
Very best wishes to my friend @PHammondMP as he delivers his first Autumn Statement today & helps UK prepare for challenges ahead
PS THERE IS NO MONEY0 -
The BBC rightly identifying that the government's main problem is getting its Brexit rhetoric to align with some sort of reality.0
-
What a shock, not.
"Hateful notes and emails allegedly sent to a North Park University student were “fabricated,” the school’s president said Tuesday in a statement, and the woman who claimed they were aimed toward her is no longer enrolled at the school.
“We are confident there is no further threat of repeated intolerance to any member of our campus community stemming from this recent incident,” the university’s President David Parkyn said in a statement.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/north-park-fabricated-notes-402556366.html0 -
There's PMQs first so we'll probably get to start the Statement somewhere round about quarter past one going by Bercow's usual practice.JosiasJessop said:
12.30, apparently.Philip_Thompson said:What time is the Statement?
I wonder if Osborne will a) be there, b) make a statement; c) make a supportive statement.0 -
It's come to something when an Autumn Statement is one of the duller political days of the year. Phillip Hammond notwithstanding.DecrepitJohnL said:Not many comments this morning. Have all the other pb regulars been exposed as Philip Hammond's SpAds?
0 -
@GuardianHeather: Prudence is back! The PM's spox tells us this will be "prudent and balanced" autumn statement, with focus on tackling productivity. #AS20160
-
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?JosiasJessop said:
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.PlatoSaid said:
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
Time will tell which is most correct.
0 -
I thought this was spot on - it's the immediate balancing act.Big_G_NorthWales said:Just received an e mail from Lord Ashcroft with his analysis on the Presidential election and it absolutely identifies the reasons for the Democrats failure. I would recommend everyone with an interest in both Brexit and the US election reads it. It is titled
'If you don’t listen to the voters, someone else will': the real lesson of Trump
Bill Mitchell
The "art" of this deal is to make Hillary pay without turning her into a martyr for the Left, which they so desperately need right now.0 -
There's a big difference between thinking something likely to happen and betting on it. That's where the price comes in. Certainly on Brexit there were a lot of people calling it a decent value bet, especially in the final week. Trump, not so much (though again that was a function of price: if he'd been 8/1 I expect more people would have backed him).TCPoliticalBetting said:The elephant in the Political Betting room, is the fact that on the two major political events of 2016 (Brexit and POTUS), the bulk of PB contributors and article writers, got both of them COMPLETELY WRONG! (OH YES THEY DID)
For a political betting website, the question should be asked is why there is such a herd mentality on here that misjudges such matters?
Of course we mainly read on this website about how clever the punters are that spent months saying that REMAIN/Clinton will happen and when LEAVE/Trump actually does happen .......then miraculously then carry on as if they never lost their shirts on being so wrong.
The miraculous bit where everybody wins is because on election nights Betfair fills up with clueless punters who are just betting on what they see on the telly, and understandably PB takes them to the cleaners.0 -
I would mention the chief cheerleader, but she's repeatedly said she doesn't read my posts.TCPoliticalBetting said:
JJ so who are all his cheerleaders? Let us have your list please. Personally I have only written a few times about him that he seemed to be as unattractive as Clinton as POTUS. I do not recall any/many eulogies of praise about how wonderful Trump is?JosiasJessop said:
And his cheerleaders on here think he does no wrong.TCPoliticalBetting said:
True. Our UK reporting of America seems to be of one mindset that Trump keeps making mistakes ha ha ha.PlatoSaid said:
Indeed. Depressingly so. I'm just avoiding almost all UK politics right now. It's all stupid nitpicking or empty posturing/strawmen.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, shade harsh on Hammond. Get the impression he's beavering away eagerly on behalf of the EU.
98% of UK journalists have no idea about US politics and haven't moved onto the Acceptance phase re Brexit. I scroll by most of their tweets as they add nothing but dollops of sore loser sneering, cartoonists are the same. Sketch writers like Mr Deacon haven't written anything funny since June.
Time will tell which is most correct. 0 -
You did, and for that you should be given the credit due.PlatoSaid said:
I'd argue that Hillary's campaign was a massive gravy train for hangers on. They weren't that focussed on getting her elected compared to stuffing their own wallets.Lucian_Fletcher said:
Clinton's campaign was so spectacularly amateurish for something that cost so much!Pulpstar said:
The inforgraphic I posted earlier showed Clinton campaigning in CA (For fundraising or w/e) and Trump avoiding the state as it is obviously a foregone conclusion that the DEMs will win there.Sean_F said:
Agreed. Trump won fair and square, according to the agreed rules.Sandpit said:
Maybe, but the time for deciding such things is before the election, not afterwards.Sean_F said:
If I were a State legislator, I would want my State's delegates to vote as my State did, but I would favour delegates being allocated on a proportionate basis, rather than winner takes all. So, a win of 52-43% in Ohio, for example, would give 10 to Trump and 8 to Clinton.Wulfrun_Phil said:On that theme, in case you hadn't yet noticed, Trump's deficit in the popular vote is now over 2 million and 1.5% in terms of vote share. It's expected to reach 2.5 million.
Over the next few years, I would also expect a big push by more states to join the compact that binds their delegates to vote for the winner of the popular vote if states with a total of more than 270 votes join in. Note that Pennysylvania and Michigan are in the process of considering such legislation.
If my team wins a game of Rugby Union, there's no point complaining they'd have lost under the rules of Rugby League.
If Californian votes mattered, Trump would have campaigned there.
Trump spent a fraction and won. That HRC relied so much on Big Data/harvesting all the info from Facebook/Google [Zuckerberg and Schmidt were key to her campaign] - they missed the whole cultural angle. And are still missing it.
Many here and pundits kept asserting it wasn't like Brexit - I fundamentally disagree - it was Brexit with knobs on. I also find it increasingly entertaining how my observations are still dismissed - not many here called it correctly. I did.
Big Data is critically important but only if you get the messages right and send them to the right people. Had Hillary's team done that (or had she simply been a better, more inspiring candidate), she'd have won - and in that case, the debate about cultural values would be very different from what it is now.
But although it was extremely close, she didn't win and the narrative is what it is.0
