politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Betfair punters are right the Republicans are set to hold o
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Betfair punters are right the Republicans are set to hold onto the House in the November midterms
Betdata.IO
Comments
-
I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.
Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.0 -
Here's your fascinating fact.
Bear in mind that Presidents very rarely fail to achieve reelection. The last two to fail were George HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter.
Both of whom saw well above average midterm election results. GHWB lost only 8 House seats, while Jimmy C lost 15.
By contrast, Obama (re-elected) lost 63, Clinton (re-elected) lost 54, and Reagan (re-elected) lost 26.
The only exception to this rule in recent history is GWB, which was in the unique circumstances of the aftermath of 9/11.0 -
A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.0
-
Equally I think the worst thing for the Democrats might be to fluke a Senate win (along with the House), electorally, at least.rcs1000 said:I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.
Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.
Though one has too set against that the possibility of another Trump nomination to the Supreme Court and continuing harassment of the Mueller investigation.
0 -
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Observer, I've heard occasional wibblings about California exiting the US, but can't really see it happening, to be honest.0 -
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
0 -
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
0 -
What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.0 -
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.0 -
I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.DavidL said:
What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.
Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.
*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.
**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing0 -
So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.TheJezziah said:
I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.DavidL said:
What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.
Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.
*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.
**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing0 -
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
0 -
That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.0 -
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
0 -
Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)DavidL said:
That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
Trump’s re-election will depend almost entirely on whether he can hang onto the mid-west states he won from the Dems by a small margin in 2016, namely PA, WI and MI. If the Dems win those back then they win even if Trump keeps OH and FL.0
-
I thought primaries were supposed to be good. We’ve tried them here, but IIRC the only candidate who came through and to parliament was Sarah Wollaston.not_on_fire said:
Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)DavidL said:
That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
The Republicans tried to get the independent “Electoral Commissions” rules unconstitutional, but fortunately failed.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
The argument that a sitting president has no advantage isn't one I made. I was just pointing out that it isn't too rare and but for 9/11 you could well have had as many failed to get reelected of the last 6.DavidL said:
So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.TheJezziah said:
I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.DavidL said:
What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.
Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.
*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.
**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing
Admittedly Bush failing without 9/11 is a hypothetical but completely plausible, though even if we do disregard it you still have 4-2, which is pretty much the point I was making as from reading about people talking about it without looking it up myself I thought there was a much more slanted record.
Edit: Although as mentioned in my previous post that is a cut off date that suits the argument.0 -
TBH I don’t recall Trump banging on about ‘democracy’ very much. I get the feeling it’s not something he worries about.MaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
To be fair, our system where the seat boundaries are drawn independently still yields a system where about 80% of the seat winners in 2022 can be predicted now with pretty high confidence (perhaps not in Scotland). The real villain is FPTP.MaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
Oh good, a potential AV thread!not_on_fire said:
To be fair, our system where the seat boundaries are drawn independently still yields a system where about 80% of the seat winners in 2022 can be predicted now with pretty high confidence (perhaps not in Scotland). The real villain is FPTP.MaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
We got on that dangerous path ourselves with the communication allowance of new Labour days. Add that to existing MPs having generous staff allowances and office costs from the public purse together with a salary which allows the incumbent to campaign full time and you have a system that seriously favours the incumbent. No system is prefect but the US is broken, possibly beyond repair.TheJezziah said:
The argument that a sitting president has no advantage isn't one I made. I was just pointing out that it isn't too rare and but for 9/11 you could well have had as many failed to get reelected of the last 6.DavidL said:
So basically if you change the facts they no longer support the argument. The reality is that incumbency is a huge source of strength in the American system. A sitting President can screw up so badly that he can overcome that advantage but it is silly to argue it doesn’t exist. Trump is in pole position and will probably win more easily than he did the last time.TheJezziah said:
I'm sure they are as depressed and as self loathing about it all as a dog who has just stolen a juicy steak.DavidL said:
What it requires is for the Supreme Court to strike down gerrymandering but that looks unlikely with the present court, let alone what it is going to look like after Trump is finished with it. It also requires Congress to replace the laws the SC struck down requiring States with a history of suppression to get prior approval of measures that would affect turnout. That doesn’t look likely either.SouthamObserver said:
Basically, the self styled “greatest democracy” is broken. The Republicans seem depressingly ok with that.
Also on the presidents often getting reelected thing, looking at it, if you start at Carter* then you have 4 presidents getting reelected and 2 not, if Bush had failed (which he might without 9/11) it would be 3-3** on getting a second term.
*It is a start point which helps the argument but you have to cut off somewhere to keep it relevant and the relevance starts to quickly drop away at that point.
**Ignoring the changed timeline from him losing
Admittedly Bush failing without 9/11 is a hypothetical but completely plausible, though even if we do disregard it you still have 4-2, which is pretty much the point I was making as from reading about people talking about it without looking it up myself I thought there was a much more slanted record.
Edit: Although as mentioned in my previous post that is a cut off date that suits the argument.0 -
538
"This cycle’s special elections still imply a Democratic wave of historic proportions, while the generic ballot polling still points to a close race for House control. Lots of uncertainty remains, and you should be prepared for either outcome."0 -
Elected judges are another bonkers featureMaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...0 -
I think that the combination of primaries and safe/gerrymandered seats is lethal. It encourages and rewards partisanship. Candidates are more scared of their activist base/possible challenges from within than they are of the electorate. Compromise becomes a dangerous word. The US has been caught in that trap for a while now making Congress unmanageable.OldKingCole said:
I thought primaries were supposed to be good. We’ve tried them here, but IIRC the only candidate who came through and to parliament was Sarah Wollaston.not_on_fire said:
Another big problem is the primary system which encourages candidates to adopt extreme positions. This malaise is starting to affect the Democrats too (from the left)DavidL said:
That is the heart of the problem, at least as far as Congress is concerned. But it is not the only problem as mentions of the Senate and a sitting President who comfortably lost the popular vote shows.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Another problem we have seen with the admittedly small sample of 1 in this country (arguably some of the London Mayors as well), but which we can see in the US, is that candidates who win through a Primary system can respond poorly to party discipline making organising a majority, even when you have one on paper, very difficult.
Primaries seem to me to be a nice idea which does not work in practice.0 -
Helpful!logical_song said:538
"This cycle’s special elections still imply a Democratic wave of historic proportions, while the generic ballot polling still points to a close race for House control. Lots of uncertainty remains, and you should be prepared for either outcome."0 -
Why would a disaster for Trump be bad for the GOP,rcs1000 said:I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.
Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.
Met another GOP stalwart this week for coffee - she, too, voted for Gary Johnson last time round.0 -
That’s a feature not a bug. The US is a federal system - you can’t judge it compared to a unitary state such as the U.K. Even here some of the regions are over represented in Westminster.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.0 -
May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.0 -
No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.ydoethur said:
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...0 -
They hold both now and couldnt get acca repeal done. They need to purge moderate repubs if they want it to happen.rcs1000 said:I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.
Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.0 -
But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.DavidL said:
No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.ydoethur said:
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...0 -
David's superb piece on Saturday which included statistics about how many Federal Judges Trump has managed to nominate already showed the risk of the alternative. We have this naive view that Judges and the law should be impartial. It is indeed something to aspire to but we should also be clear eyed about what the reality is.not_on_fire said:
Elected judges are another bonkers featureMaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...0 -
Funny that you recommend a policy that would splinter the Democratic vote. I’m guessing Texas would conveniently be just below the split threshold?Charles said:
May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
For me another huge issue with US system is that there are elections to the House every 2 years. This puts everyone in a constant campaign mode with no incentive to consider the long term0 -
-
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...0 -
Certainly a single state with a population of 40m is causing huge distortions in the system. But inevitably each party will look at this for party advantage rather than the common good.Charles said:
May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.0 -
I’m not sure why they’d be able to do that in November given they’ve hitherto failed?rcs1000 said:I'm of the view that the worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is to hold the House in 2018. Given they will hold the Senate also (absent an earthquake), they will then be able to implement what they've always wanted: abolishing Obamacare and Roe v Wade.
Both of those - but in particular the former - would be a disaster for Trump in 2020. People hate Obamacare. But they love the Affordable Care Act.
Also, if they do hold the House I expect it will be by a small margin.0 -
I’d have thought there’s a touch of value on the Democrats there. Democrats are coming out to vote in special elections.0
-
Yes, to an outsider it seems astonishing that the next few months of US politics are going to be dominated by the nomination and election of a judge.not_on_fire said:
Elected judges are another bonkers featureMaxPB said:
America's democracy is in a terminal state. What a shambolic system.Sandpit said:
ISTR that only half a dozen states have something that we might recognise as an independent Electoral Commission working on boundaries. The rest have either a ‘bipartisan committee’ which stitches up safe seats for R and D, or the incumbent party can just draw their own lines on the map. As you say, insane.not_on_fire said:
This is what happens when you let the polticians draw their own districts. The US system is insane.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
0 -
The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.ydoethur said:
But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.DavidL said:
No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.ydoethur said:
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...0 -
I have to say I think you're stretching things there. Whether or not the Constitution was being exploited by the south, the fact remains that slavery would ultimately have been an irreconcilable issue for both sides. It is rather difficult to see how any Constitution could have reconciled the two sides in a way the extant one did not, especially as Congress was willing to guarantee the continued existence of slavery where it already existed, just not to allow it to spread to the new territories.DavidL said:
The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.ydoethur said:
But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.DavidL said:
No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.ydoethur said:
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...
Have a good morning.0 -
I expect that a lead of 6% would be sufficient for the Dems to win the House, especially as quite a lot of Republican incumbents are retiring.
The Dems have two problems that are not related to gerrymandering:-
1. Too much support concentrated in very big cities
2. The collapse in their support in small rural States.0 -
The whole issue has got the Democrats and the media completely apoplectic but I can’t see either what has changed in terms of rules (other than enforcement) nor of what the complainants wish to see happen apart from simply ignoring people crossing the border illegally.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
Does anyone know (I don’t) what happpens in Britain to children found in lorries at Dover?0 -
I tend to agree. Gerrymandering works best by making your vote as efficient as possible but ultimately there must be a fair few naturally republican districts in play given the generic lead and the apparent enthusiasm of Democrats. Looks like it is going to be close though.AlastairMeeks said:I’d have thought there’s a touch of value on the Democrats there. Democrats are coming out to vote in special elections.
0 -
"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."
https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/0 -
Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.0
-
so back in the real world
Angie saves her job for the moment but remains much weakened
Horst Seehofer is the German David Davis
Austria ignores EU and puts up border controls
Nobody in Germany believes this is over. TMerkel = TMay
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article178647532/Pressestimmen-zum-Asylstreit-Das-Drama-wird-weitergehen.html
0 -
I’ve no idea about Texas. I assume that California would end up 4-2 to the Democrats which would more closely reflect the votes cast than the current 2-0 resultnot_on_fire said:
Funny that you recommend a policy that would splinter the Democratic vote. I’m guessing Texas would conveniently be just below the split threshold?Charles said:
May be there should be a policy that ones stated reach a certain size they should split. So California could be 3 states - with 6 senators - and elected representatives that are closer to the voters rather than just representing LA and SF.DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
For me another huge issue with US system is that there are elections to the House every 2 years. This puts everyone in a constant campaign mode with no incentive to consider the long term0 -
Try engaging with the question rather than attacking the poster next time.not_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me0 -
This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.-1 -
I think in this case facts were being pointed out rather than anyone being attacked.Charles said:
Try engaging with the question rather than attacking the poster next time.not_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “won’t you think of the children” emotion, how would you deal with the problem?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
If you believe that illegal immigrants are at risk of absconding then there is an argument for locking them up until they are deported. But then do you lock kids up with their parents (“cruel and inhumane”) or do you separate them (“evil and depraved”). Or do you not lock the parents up (“a soft touch”)? Or perhaps you could use military facilities to house them (“inappropriate and totalitarian behaviour”)?
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me0 -
I recall on Trump night watching the counties colour by State. Pennsylvania was nearly all red, apart from Philly, but even in Red States, the major city was blue such as Louisville Kentucky.Sean_F said:I expect that a lead of 6% would be sufficient for the Dems to win the House, especially as quite a lot of Republican incumbents are retiring.
The Dems have two problems that are not related to gerrymandering:-
1. Too much support concentrated in very big cities
2. The collapse in their support in small rural States.
Not that there is that much difference in England. There are very few Labour seats with much rural population. The division here is nearly as total, but I suppose the geographic differences are smaller, so voters in true blue Bosworth do mix with voters in Red Leicester.
The US Constitution is rather fossilised, but treated very much like a holy text and very difficult to ammend. Essentiially, the authors tried to establish a form of government of a slightly more democratic version of Georgian England. A powerful executive elected monarch with perogative powers, a powerful independent judicary, a Commons, and a Senate similar to the Lords. For the first century or so Senators were appointed by State governors rather than directly elected.
It will be interesting to see how the Californian referendum on division goes. It may redress the democratic balance a bit. I don't think a State has divided since Virginia and West Virginia in 1863, in unusual Civil War circumstances.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Three_States_Initiative_(2018)0 -
“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”
Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.0 -
538 again:Sean_F said:Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s model of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are winning the race for Congress 46.5 percent to 40.1 percent over Republicans. That 6.4-point lead is little changed from their 6.3-point advantage (46.9 percent to 40.7 percent) from last week and just a skosh higher than their 5.9-point lead (45.6 percent to 39.7 percent) one month ago today. As a reminder, experts believe Democrats need to win the House popular vote by around 7 percentage points to flip the chamber."0 -
@Charles “I dont have a view on US immigration policy because it’s nothing to do with me”
Are you trying to claim your Obama whataboutery was posed from a neutral standpoint?0 -
-
It is Brexit Groundhog day again!rottenborough said:"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."
https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/
But at least there is football later. Sweden over the Swiss, I think. England over Columbia, but could be tight.0 -
Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?not_on_fire said:“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”
Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.0 -
Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obamanot_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border0 -
There is very little evidence for this claim at all, indeed the last seat by seat breakdown for the House of Representatives in November had the Democrats ahead and almost every President loses significant numbers of seats in their first midterms, with the exception being George W Bush in 2001 because of 9/11. In fact in 2006 the last time the Democrats took the House they gained a more than 30 seat majority with an 8% lead, not much different to this poll.
It would also be a huge mistake to suggest that the midterms have any bearing whatsoever on Trump's prospects of re election in 2020. Indeed Bill Clinton and Obama in 1994 and 2010 suffered huge losses in their first midterms and were easily re elected. George W Bush was re elected by just one state in the closest re election of any President since Truman in 2004 despite his party gaining seats in the 2002 midterms. Indeed the last President to lose his re election battle after only one term of his party in the White House was Carter to Reagan in 1980 and his party held the House in 1978 despite losses0 -
I think it fair to say that most Democrats are fairly Right wing by UK standards.tlg86 said:
Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?not_on_fire said:“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”
Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.
US attitudes to the poor are coloured by racism, but are also the flipside of the American myth*. In a country that believes that anyone can become rich or President by hard work and opportunity it does rather lay itself open to believing the poor are lacking in effort and ability.
*myth because America has social mobility less than many other OECD countries.0 -
The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
so sort of like the UK under BlairFoxy said:
I think it fair to say that most Democrats are fairly Right wing by UK standards.tlg86 said:
Could California not introduce healthcare themselves? And when you say national attitude, does that mean Californians are as bad as the rest, even if they vote Democrat - i.e. they're just virtue signallers?not_on_fire said:“This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?”
Several issues - no affordable healthcare for the poor, a national attitude in the US that people are to blame for their own poverty regardless of circumstance, the political system that discourages the poor from voting and does its best to make their votes irrelevant when they do.
US attitudes to the poor are coloured by racism, but are also the flipside of the American myth*. In a country that believes that anyone can become rich or President by hard work and opportunity it does rather lay itself open to believing the poor are lacking in effort and ability.
*myth because America has social mobility less than many other OECD countries.0 -
No it does not because the initial choice -- and quite possibly (as last time) the only choice -- will be made by MPs and not respondents to ConHome voodoo polls.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!Alanbrooke said:
Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obamanot_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border
From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border0 -
Excellent point and as I have argued earlier Americans prefer divided government so it is almost sometimes an advantage to a President's re election chances to have at least one chamber of Congress from the opposite partyrcs1000 said:Here's your fascinating fact.
Bear in mind that Presidents very rarely fail to achieve reelection. The last two to fail were George HW Bush, and Jimmy Carter.
Both of whom saw well above average midterm election results. GHWB lost only 8 House seats, while Jimmy C lost 15.
By contrast, Obama (re-elected) lost 63, Clinton (re-elected) lost 54, and Reagan (re-elected) lost 26.
The only exception to this rule in recent history is GWB, which was in the unique circumstances of the aftermath of 9/11.0 -
Sorry David, but unusually you are quite wrong. As ydoethur has pointed out, the cause of the war was the fundamental and irreconcilable nature of the slave question, with the trade and economic schism as a supporting minor factor.DavidL said:
The south had exploited the flaws in the Constitution in the same was as the Republican party (ironically) is doing so now. This, as now, had allowed a minority disproportionate power. If the Constitution had been fit for purpose this would not have arisen in the first place and the tensions that resulted would not have led to secession.ydoethur said:
But those are hardly flaws in the Constitution, which was heavily biased towards the South.DavidL said:
No, the fact that that hegemony was being challenged by the new Republican party and was not going to be sustainable caused them to secede. As the north grew more populous and successful Congress was slipping away, the Presidency (with the right to nominate SC Justices) was falling out of reach and the Missouri compromise was under threat. The collapse of "national" parties, where the south did indeed have disproportionate influence, was along with the election of a Republican President, the final straws.ydoethur said:
The fact that the South was heavily over-represented in the Senate, the courts, the army and the one national party was the reason they seceded?DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
It's a view I suppose...
The only way it could have ended peacefully was if the slaveowners has been bought out, as they were in the British Empire. I don’t know whether that option was ever seriously considered - I’m sure somebody on here does!0 -
Off-topic:
I hadn't realised that British divers found that Thai football team in the cave. Would they be suitable candidates for the George Cross, and their support team for other honours?0 -
And all the evidence is Tory MPs are heading for a Javid v Gove runoff now and rejecting a Boris or Mogg or Williamson etc candidacy just reinforcing the pointDecrepitJohnL said:
No it does not because the initial choice -- and quite possibly (as last time) the only choice -- will be made by MPs and not respondents to ConHome voodoo polls.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Indeed. I think Gove realises he's not PM material and could easily be persuaded by team Javid for support in exchange for No 11.DavidL said:
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html
Theresa would be done if they teamed up against her.0 -
Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combinationDavidL said:
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Tory members clearly see Javid as more electable it seemsSandyRentool said:
I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Neither Democrats nor Republicans are much interested in the poor.tlg86 said:
This may be a dumb question, but given California - and San Francisco in particular - is considered to be one of the more enlightened parts of the USA, can they not sort out their own problems?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.0 -
At least it would make Gove face up to the Brexit damage to the economy.HYUFD said:
Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combinationDavidL said:
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Treating slaves as non humans was the major cause of the civil war.DavidL said:
I can see the argument for federalism requiring some sort of equalisation but the differences now are vastly greater than the drafters of the Constitution could ever have contemplated. Once again it is simply undemocratic. Similar problems and defects in the Constitution were a major cause of the Civil War.Nigelb said:
And the Senate is barely more democratic than our own House of Lords in terms of representation -California, having a population greater than the combined 20 smallest states, and the same number of Senators as the smallest.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
And of course the Senate wields far greater powers.
Every flaw in the constitution can be traced back to the compromises over slavery. Every step of the American story from independence to the Civil War is a story about the contortions the country went through to stay united despite having people in it who thought people were property and those who thought it was morally abhorrent.0 -
My vote for Javid must have made the difference then !!!SandyRentool said:
I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
It is not in the interest of the EU to relent or compromise on its core values, including the "four freedoms". The UK can't cherry pick - hasn't T May learnt anything.rottenborough said:"All signs point to crisis — unless the EU relents."
https://www.politico.eu/article/london-brexit-time-bomb-is-about-to-blow-theresa-may-withdrawal-agreement/
If BINO is unccetable, the cleanest solution is no deal, with WTO terms initially, as a starting point. It will be painful, particularly for the UK, but that is the price of freedom from being run by Berlin/Brussels. Trading and other agreements can then be rebuilt gradually with the EU where both sides want one, but this will take a long time, as there will be an atmosphere of mutual hostility for many years to come. Brexit is effectively a declaration of war (in a non-combatant sense) by the UK against the EU.0 -
Quite.JosiasJessop said:
I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!Alanbrooke said:
Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obamanot_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border
From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge0 -
That's similar to studies suggesting that the Conservatives needed an 11% lead to win a majority. In practice, you get votes where you need them if there's a big shift in your favour.logical_song said:
538 again:Sean_F said:Re the House, the only time recently that it has not gone to the winner of the popular vote was in 2012, when the Republicans held it narrowly, despite being 1% behind.
"According to FiveThirtyEight’s model of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats are winning the race for Congress 46.5 percent to 40.1 percent over Republicans. That 6.4-point lead is little changed from their 6.3-point advantage (46.9 percent to 40.7 percent) from last week and just a skosh higher than their 5.9-point lead (45.6 percent to 39.7 percent) one month ago today. As a reminder, experts believe Democrats need to win the House popular vote by around 7 percentage points to flip the chamber."
0 -
Not the GC but maybe an OBE apiece -- and even that would be down to news value. This is not their first time, and how often do we hand out gongs to (say) mountain rescue teams?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
I hadn't realised that British divers found that Thai football team in the cave. Would they be suitable candidates for the George Cross, and their support team for other honours?
The Thai government is more likely to lavish honours on them.0 -
normally I wouldn't post from ZH but this one is sourced on US Govt documentationJosiasJessop said:
I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!Alanbrooke said:
Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obamanot_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco.o learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustaain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might se
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border
From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border
seems likely to me as all people will go through the same processing centres
what the two articles together show is the US media is serially split between Trumps and anti Trump. it has become as unbiased as a Remain Leave split in the UK.
I neither believe Obama or Trump are faultless, just that both have PR machines with horns locked
0 -
This one does but Gove as Chancellor would be excellentHYUFD said:
Tory members clearly see Javid as more electable it seemsSandyRentool said:
I thought Gove would be well ahead v Javid. Interesting.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
Yet San Francisco is one of the most Democrat dominated areas in what proclaims to be one of the most progressive states in the country.SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That was one of the times I could not avoid a visit!DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accompanied the civil disobedience of the 1960s. It’s not hard to imagine that, too. Basically, the US is in a very bad way. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I used to go there for work four or five times a year; now I do all I can to avoid it. Sometimes that’s not possible, but I have managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
But a week there was more than enough to show just what a pitiless place the US can be: downtown in one of the richest places on earth and everywhere you look there are barefooted, filth-encrusted homeless people, many with clearly severe mental health problems, shuffling around living existences unimaginable in any part of Europe. Having seen that, it came as no surprise to learn of the forced separations of families on the Mexican border.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_San_Francisco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Francisco0 -
I'm starting to feel nauseous.....HYUFD said:
Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combinationDavidL said:
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0 -
I often read the guardian or the new statesman, do you only read articles which tell you are right all the time ?logical_song said:
Quite.JosiasJessop said:
I must admit that a zerohedge 'factcheck' is quite amusing!Alanbrooke said:
Hard to see how they are not. 90,000 children separated from their parents under Obamanot_on_fire said:
It was exceptionally rare under Obama rather than being routine. Don’t pretend the situations are equivalent.Charles said:
Out of interest - and trying to avoid “iour”)?SouthamObserver said:
San Francisco. That wason the Mexican border.DavidL said:
I thought you had a really successful event in LA recently?SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I guess you’re right. There was a lot of violence that accomphave managed to cutback big time.Nigelb said:
Unlikely.SouthamObserver said:
It cannot be sustained. In the end, the majority wins or the minority resorts to repression to ensure its ongoing dominance. With widescale voter suppression we are already beginning to see the latter. I wonder how long it will be before secessionist movements begin to gain some traction in certain states.DavidL said:A system which allows a party 6.4% behind to win barely qualifies as democratic at all. That is the equivalent of Ed Miliband having become PM in 2015 instead of Cameron. I am really not sure that such a “victory” would do Trump much good in the long run.
Instead I think we might see widespread civil disobedience similar to that of the 1960s.
It will swing back eventually - Democrats are beginning to better compete in State elections - but it will likely be a long hard slog.
It’s also worth noting that forced separation happened under Obama as well but the media didn’t care then...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-01/fact-check-did-obama-detain-90000-children-border
From another angle:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border
"Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
0 -
You’d have to be mad and egotistical to want to be PM in the immediate post Brexit aftermath.
It’s a crowded field.
Wondering if Mrs Gove would be happy with no11.0 -
It would change the political climate and Corbyn would come under attack from good communicators in a complete change from TM's difficulty in expressing herselfRoger said:
I'm starting to feel nauseous.....HYUFD said:
Javid PM and Gove as Chancellor would be the ideal combinationDavidL said:
Also suggests that a Javid/Gove dream team is going to be unstoppable should it come about.HYUFD said:The final Conservative Home next Tory leader runoff poll of Tory members confirms Javid's position as the new favourite to succeed May as he leads Gove 45% to 43%.
However the fact the margin between the two frontrunners is so close compared to their much bigger respective margins over Johnson and Hunt suggests both Javid and Gove are now the clear frontrunners in the next Tory leader stakes.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/07/our-surveys-final-next-tory-leader-run-off-javid-45-per-cent-gove-43-per-cent.html0
