politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At a 70%+ chance the betting markets are surely over-rating Tr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At a 70%+ chance the betting markets are surely over-rating Trump’s chances of being the WH2020 GOP nominee
The best post-Helsinki bets?
Comments
-
First? Unlike Trump, with any luck.0
-
Until today, I probably would've disagreed.
But that press conference made him look either like a man of Corbynite judgement, taking the word of Putin over his own nation's intelligence agencies, or submissive. It's a terrible look either way.0 -
OT:Too many variables to really ascertain probabilities, unless Chaos Theory comes into the calculations - How long was that piece of string?... .0
-
FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.0 -
Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.0
-
If Trump is a Putin puppet, he will run again; if he's simply an idiot, then it still seems fairly likely that he will do so, so absent impeachment, somewhere around 70-80% probability.Morris_Dancer said:Until today, I probably would've disagreed.
But that press conference made him look either like a man of Corbynite judgement, taking the word of Putin over his own nation's intelligence agencies, or submissive. It's a terrible look either way.
Is there yet any Republican to run against him (and stand a chance against the Trumpite base) ? Most have ruled themselves out by their abject abasement.0 -
I would bet that helsinki wont change anything.0
-
I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".0 -
One thing seems reasonably certain - he won't get a second term.0
-
That's what they said about his first.Nigelb said:One thing seems reasonably certain - he won't get a second term.
0 -
Mr. B, probably, but we live in very strange and unpredictable times.
Hopefully one of the long-odds tips (which I backed) offered by Mr. Smithson will come off.0 -
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
0 -
The mainstream republicans will moan, but will go along with it.
Its the same phenomenon with labour moderates accommodating corbyn, and liberal/EEA brexiteers going along with a hard brexit. They chicken out of actual confrontation and end up being tools.0 -
Remember "grab 'em by the pussy", or the support for Charlottesville Nazis... or a dozen similar moments.edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination....
Quite a few thought these would change things, and they didn't. They changed the nature of his base for the worse, and I'm far from convinced that this clear betrayal of his country will make any difference.0 -
Mr. B2, think that's be a mistake. Could still beat Trump, perhaps, but just having a middle-of-the-road adult would be a nice counterpoint for the blues, without the risk of scaring off the swing voters on the right.0
-
Does the Constitution allow an impeached President to be re-elected?edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".0 -
Indeed, which is why I qualified the certainty.edmundintokyo said:
That's what they said about his first.Nigelb said:One thing seems reasonably certain - he won't get a second term.
0 -
https://youtube.com/watch?v=K4mydHqT77Uedmundintokyo said:
That's what they said about his first.Nigelb said:One thing seems reasonably certain - he won't get a second term.
0 -
Nevertheless, across the West, we have a new generation with a very different view of capitalism than we had growing up during the Cold War. Both the absence of the communist threat and our degeneration into oligarchy colour their politics very differently. And of course the internet.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, think that's be a mistake. Could still beat Trump, perhaps, but just having a middle-of-the-road adult would be a nice counterpoint for the blues, without the risk of scaring off the swing voters on the right.
0 -
Mr. B, whilst the taped comments would've been more than enough to put me off voting for him, some were swayed by the 'locker room talk' argument. That can't apply to agreeing with a foreign leader above the consensus of your intelligence agencies.
Trump's press conference and his comments made him look either weak or stupid. There's no argument that gets around that.0 -
Not if found guilty.not_on_fire said:
Does the Constitution allow an impeached President to be re-elected?edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."0 -
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
0 -
And there's an argument which gets around supporting Nazis ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B, whilst the taped comments would've been more than enough to put me off voting for him, some were swayed by the 'locker room talk' argument. That can't apply to agreeing with a foreign leader above the consensus of your intelligence agencies.
Trump's press conference and his comments made him look either weak or stupid. There's no argument that gets around that.
Many of those who are in are all in.0 -
Thanks - so that edge case isn’t actually possible in practice (I assume even Trump supporters aren’t stupid enough to nominate someone who is barred from becoming president).Nigelb said:
Not if found guilty.not_on_fire said:
Does the Constitution allow an impeached President to be re-elected?edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
EDIT: Though I guess he wouldn’t be barred if he was 25th Amendmented out rather than impeached, as presumably there is no prohibition there.0 -
Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.0 -
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.0 -
Interesting question, which seems to have a complicated answer:not_on_fire said:
Does the Constitution allow an impeached President to be re-elected?edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-president-run-for-reelection-after-impeachment
Then a 25th Amendment disqualification would be a whole nother can of worms.0 -
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....0 -
It's more than that, though - the younger generation are on the rough end of the deal, given the distribution of wealth, pensions, and the new 'flexible' labour market, in a way that wasn't true in our day. And all of us are being taken for a ride by a small cadre of super-rich; the concentration of wealth into a few hands is markedly more dramatic today than when we were young.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.0 -
I don't think it complicated at all. Should a sufficient supermajority in Congress vote for impeachment, the likelihood of their not disqualifying him from office is as near zero as makes no difference.edmundintokyo said:
Interesting question, which seems to have a complicated answer:not_on_fire said:
Does the Constitution allow an impeached President to be re-elected?edmundintokyo said:I'm not going to try to argue with Mike on whether there's a short-term trading opportunity, but on the probability of the actual event, it seems like we've been through this before.
His senators and congressmen hate him but his base love him. And his senators and congressmen owe their jobs to his base. So every time Trump does something bad, they tut and condemn for a couple of days then go back to enabling him.
Once you look at the process by which he could be ditched, he seems safe as long as the base continue loving him. And if the base still love him, and he still wants to run, he still gets the nomination.
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-president-run-for-reelection-after-impeachment
Then a 25th Amendment disqualification would be a whole nother can of worms.0 -
Mr. B, I can remember the headline but nothing at all about the Charlottesville story. Obviously it didn't have enough of an impact to derail things for Trump.0
-
Just listen to yourself: "The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants" You'll be telling us next that the Tories are infested with One Nation Conservatives. Outrageous! Root them out!nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.0 -
Mr. B2, that's true. Globalisation and mass migration is thinning out the middle and, relatively, accelerating the income of those at the top, and sometimes actively reducing it for those in the middle.
But those same grumpy youngsters are in love with mass migration too. Of course, voters don't have to make sense.
I'd prefer the next warning about how dangerous socialism can be not to be written in the annals of British history.0 -
George Galloway on Good Morning Britain being rather positive about Trump for engaging with Russia and saying 'isn't jaw jaw better than war war?'' Says congressional investigations are entirely motivated by Democrats fury they managed to nominate the only person in America who could lose to Trump.
Makes a change from his opposition to George W Bush anyway0 -
I think nielh rather conclusively proved my point.TheJezziah said:
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....0 -
Indeed, it’s all very well to patronisingly talk about how the young don’t appreciate the “benefits” of capitalism’s, but don’t be surprised if they support another system when they see almost none of the benefits going their way.IanB2 said:
It's more than that, though - the younger generation are on the rough end of the deal, given the distribution of wealth, pensions, and the new 'flexible' labour market, in a way that wasn't true in our day. And all of us are being taken for a ride by a small cadre of super-rich; the concentration of wealth into a few hands is markedly more dramatic today than when we were young.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.0 -
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party0 -
Who the democrats select to run in 2020 will probably be the most important factor in whether Trump gets a second term or not (assuming he is selected). However, I don't think a Sanders-style democratic socialist will win against Trump. There are plenty of Tories on this board who would vote for a hatstand with a blue rosette so long as Corbyn is the alternative, and the partisan nature of US politics makes it even more so. Look at how quickly Ocasio Cortez has become a hate figure for the American right.IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
The other thing that matters is whether or not Trump can make swing voters feel as if their situations have improved in the last four years. Do they have more money in their pockets? Do they feel safer? Do they feel that illegal immigration is being tackled? (Clearly a huge reason why Trump was elected). These factors will probably sway things far more than Trump's supposed Russian links.
As others have already said we have been here before and few thought he would get a first term. I agree that there is a short term trading opportunity here. Trump will recover. He's the teflon don(ald).0 -
As Mark Meechan once said... Russian hackers will be blamed for everything
I'm confident about my Trump lasting out the full term bets.0 -
Mr, B, SJWs aren't necessarily 'those who care about social justice', though. That's the positive definition. The other is a politically correct gang of puritans, a mob that descends upon anybody doing or saying anything they deem impure (the professor who lost his job after a joke about female scientists springs to mind) to enforce by bullying their own hyper-politically correct worldview.
That's one of the reasons things are becoming so divided now, I think. We have people who speak the same language using the same words to mean utterly different things because the definition (or definitions) is so broad it's almost meaningless. Instead of illuminating with precision, the written word can be read in utterly divergent ways. We see the same with 'human rights violations', which can mean everything from North Korean concentration camps to Dale Farm squatters being evicted after a decade of illegal occupation (the UN was displeased).
This has been exacerbated, of course, by social media and the echo chamber effect.0 -
Its going to be WH2016 all over again. The left will keep making the same errors.TheJezziah said:
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....0 -
Surely you mean ...unless they go third party and oblivion - under FPTP?HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party0 -
The left is poisoned. As much, if not more, than the right. It is the moderates ( of whom i identify myself) who are the minority.Benpointer said:
Just listen to yourself: "The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants" You'll be telling us next that the Tories are infested with One Nation Conservatives. Outrageous! Root them out!nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.0 -
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.
0 -
Spot on. In a democracy, when a majority no longer feel they have a stake in a society that society is no longer sustainable. What happens then is that it is either overturned, or it staggers on for a little longer thanks to repressive measures, such as - for example - voter suppression.not_on_fire said:
Indeed, it’s all very well to patronisingly talk about how the young don’t appreciate the “benefits” of capitalism’s, but don’t be surprised if they support another system when they see almost none of the benefits going their way.IanB2 said:
It's more than that, though - the younger generation are on the rough end of the deal, given the distribution of wealth, pensions, and the new 'flexible' labour market, in a way that wasn't true in our day. And all of us are being taken for a ride by a small cadre of super-rich; the concentration of wealth into a few hands is markedly more dramatic today than when we were young.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.
0 -
Trump and Corbyn certainly, however I doubt that it will be versus Sanders and Boris.HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party0 -
One of our more amusing threads
0 -
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
I can certainly see the LDs picking up more votes in a Boris v Corbyn battle, there is even a chance of an Umunna led UK centrist En Marche style party on a pro single market platform.Benpointer said:
Surely you mean ...unless they go third party and oblivion - under FPTP?HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party
In the US I could also see Bloomberg running as an independent or Kasich on a ticket with a centrist Democratic e.g. Mark Warner of it is Trump v Sanders though as you say FPTP makes a breakthrough more difficult0 -
But so many people wanted to jump out of the plane first and worry about how to operate the parachute later.Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
Would the Democrats want him disqualified, or would they rather run against him again?Nigelb said:
I don't think it complicated at all. Should a sufficient supermajority in Congress vote for impeachment, the likelihood of their not disqualifying him from office is as near zero as makes no difference.0 -
Great analogy - and frankly quite a few wanted to get out of the plane so much they weren't bothered whether they had a parachute or not.IanB2 said:
But so many people wanted to jump out of the plane first and worry about how to operate the parachute later.Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
Boris already had a big lead with both Tory voters and voters as a whole in the weekend's post Chequers Delta poll as to who should succeed May. Sanders is second only to Biden in most US Democratic Party primary polls and when you combine the Sanders and Warren figures they put a populist leftist first ahead of Biden.logical_song said:
Trump and Corbyn certainly, however I doubt that it will be versus Sanders and Boris.HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party
The base in all the main US and UK parties is flexing its muscles to ensure one of its own gets the party leadership not an establishment figure0 -
You're ignoring what happened. The EU folded its arms until we played their game by their rules. We could have SAID "well, we've used the time wisely and this is what we've decided...." - and they would still have said "Excellent. Now this is how it is going to be."Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.
Basically, they took hold of the travelling draft and wouldn't let go. Our first major negotiating error right there.
Brexit will be a case study in How To Fuck Up Negotiations 1.01 for decades to come. Both sides have been dog shit.0 -
So? The first thing that needed to "happen" was for the UK to arrive at a decision as to what sort of Brexit it wanted. That we are doing it now, two years later, is a significant failure by our politicians, particularly on the leave side. And even now many are trying to kick the can down the road.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
Tory voters don't get to choose the Tory leader though.HYUFD said:
Boris already had a big lead with both Tory voters and voters as a whole in the weekend's post Chequers Delta poll as to who should succeed May. Sanders is second only to Biden in most US Democratic Party primary polls and when you combine the Sanders and Warren figures they put a populist leftist first ahead of Biden.logical_song said:
Trump and Corbyn certainly, however I doubt that it will be versus Sanders and Boris.HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party
The base in all the main US and UK parties is flexing its muscles to ensure one of its own gets the party leadership not an establishment figure0 -
And how have we got here ?SouthamObserver said:
Spot on. In a democracy, when a majority no longer feel they have a stake in a society that society is no longer sustainable. What happens then is that it is either overturned, or it staggers on for a little longer thanks to repressive measures, such as - for example - voter suppression.not_on_fire said:
Indeed, it’s all very well to patronisingly talk about how the young don’t appreciate the “benefits” of capitalism’s, but don’t be surprised if they support another system when they see almost none of the benefits going their way.IanB2 said:
It's more than that, though - the younger generation are on the rough end of the deal, given the distribution of wealth, pensions, and the new 'flexible' labour market, in a way that wasn't true in our day. And all of us are being taken for a ride by a small cadre of super-rich; the concentration of wealth into a few hands is markedly more dramatic today than when we were young.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.
I'd say the Blair\Campbell continuous erosion of trust in what the government says - adopted by Cameron and Osborne of course - the expenses scandal, the Mandy all get filthy rich and hang the consequences has simply caught the mainstream politicians up.
you can fool some of the people some of the time etc.
Now, why should you believe anything ? The anoraks will do their own research but Joe Public will just think lying bastards and might as well vote for the colourful candidate as at least theres a chance he'll do some of what he says.0 -
Mr. Observer, indeed. Corbyn's spending-happy involvement of the state to make everything better might sound superficially appealing to those who have somehow managed to avoid any history at all, but it'll lead to disaster.0
-
i.e. Boris will not get past the MPsBenpointer said:
Tory voters don't get to choose the Tory leader though.HYUFD said:
Boris already had a big lead with both Tory voters and voters as a whole in the weekend's post Chequers Delta poll as to who should succeed May. Sanders is second only to Biden in most US Democratic Party primary polls and when you combine the Sanders and Warren figures they put a populist leftist first ahead of Biden.logical_song said:
Trump and Corbyn certainly, however I doubt that it will be versus Sanders and Boris.HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party
The base in all the main US and UK parties is flexing its muscles to ensure one of its own gets the party leadership not an establishment figure0 -
I made no predictions for the race... I was replying to your struggle with which is worse the SJW's or the others (and using the same system Nazi would seem to be the label)nielh said:
Its going to be WH2016 all over again. The left will keep making the same errors.TheJezziah said:
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....
The worst SJW is probably about 1/10 as bad as the best Nazi.The Nazi's will support and could easily lead to genocide, the SJW will yap on about some person not using the correct identification for a transexual Jewish black woman.
Although the Morris Dancer definition seems a bit wider and would include newspapers that go after individuals judging by his description.....
As for the American left I think they will work incredibly hard to get their candidate in the presidential race this time, after last time when the centrist candidate lost anyway I think they have a chance. If they fail again then we could well see a rerun of 2016.0 -
Indeed. Even more than half way down there seem to be some that are sure we will land on a haystack.Benpointer said:
Great analogy - and frankly quite a few wanted to get out of the plane so much they weren't bothered whether they had a parachute or not.IanB2 said:
But so many people wanted to jump out of the plane first and worry about how to operate the parachute later.Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.
The early jumpers were, of course, paranoid that someone would take a look at the parachute and find that it didn't work.0 -
They do tell Tory MPs in marginal seats panicking over Tory Leave voters defecting to UKIP though which candidate will be most likely to hold their seats. Mogg will also I think back Boris and take MPs backing him to the Boris camp. Remember Leadsom and IDS and Davis all got to the final two with Tory MPs and then to the membership so Boris certainly canBenpointer said:
Tory voters don't get to choose the Tory leader though.HYUFD said:
Boris already had a big lead with both Tory voters and voters as a whole in the weekend's post Chequers Delta poll as to who should succeed May. Sanders is second only to Biden in most US Democratic Party primary polls and when you combine the Sanders and Warren figures they put a populist leftist first ahead of Biden.logical_song said:
Trump and Corbyn certainly, however I doubt that it will be versus Sanders and Boris.HYUFD said:
Most likely the Democrats will pick a populist leftist like Sanders or Warren.Benpointer said:
I agree - I can't see there being a different Republican nominee no matter how inept/corrupt/dumb Trump appears over the next two years.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Hopefully though, his actions - coupled with a more acceptable Democratic candidate - will swing enough voters for him to lose the election.
Indeed it is looking increasingly likely the next US presidential election will be Trump v Sanders and the next UK general election will be Boris v Corbyn, centrists need not apply unless they go third party
The base in all the main US and UK parties is flexing its muscles to ensure one of its own gets the party leadership not an establishment figure0 -
Wouldn't personally have said that the Conservatives were that bothered about social justice.TheJezziah said:
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....0 -
"The lost art of patience
We all expect instant gratification – and it’s politics that’s suffering
Jamie Bartlett"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/the-lost-art-of-patience/0 -
Trump won 4 States by tiny margins, it doesn't need too many to change their minds - providing they live in these few States.kyf_100 said:On seeing the coverage yesterday, I immedately assumed the game would be up for Trump in 2020 (if not sooner).
But one has only to look at Trump Twitter from the likes of James Woods to Mike Cernovich and everyone in between to see that his supporters aren't changing his minds.
While her contribution to PB was mostly posting links to some truly deranged material, Plato showed us all what it's like on the other side of the looking glass during the last presidential campaign.
I'm now of the mind that it would take actual footage of Trump being peed on in a Russian hotel room with an "I love Vlad" tattoo on his backside to come out to shift the opinion of his supporters. And even then they would probably find a way to defend him.
Trump's behaviour may put off some moderate republicans. But given the partisan nature of US politics, I think it more likely he will shrug this mis-step off and they will rally round him by 2020.
Nice graphics here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/??noredirect=on0 -
Mr. Jezziah, some newspaper reporting is atrocious (still can't quite believe the 'openly gay' line used against a judge) but it's rarely puritanical. Outraged, yes, and often politically biased this way or that but far less censorious or trying to limit what ordinary people can say or do.
Saturation of extreme terminology has also heavily diluted the impact (Nazis and racists being top of the list). It's idiotic and reduces the power of language when it comes to denouncing actual racists and Nazis.0 -
So far we've gone on to the car lot and, without seeing a single car, agreed we will pay £40 grand for our car.IanB2 said:
So? The first thing that needed to "happen" was for the UK to arrive at a decision as to what sort of Brexit it wanted. That we are doing it now, two years later, is a significant failure by our politicians, particularly on the leave side. And even now many are trying to kick the can down the road.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.
Oh, and drive it on the right.
Is that how YOU buy your cars?0 -
Or rather those leading the charge out of the plane door were sure they had parachutes plus spares while not giving a feck about their fellow jumpers.Benpointer said:
Great analogy - and frankly quite a few wanted to get out of the plane so much they weren't bothered whether they had a parachute or not.IanB2 said:
But so many people wanted to jump out of the plane first and worry about how to operate the parachute later.Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
Hm! When people start believing a consensus is written in stone, then it will be broken, most probably by events. I can still remember having an argument with a teacher many years ago, that I could not see how the USSR would survive, due to so many different countries and cultures being run by Moscow, but the consensus said it would He was a good tory member as well as teaching Latin.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. B2, I'd disagree with your oligarchy comments. That's more a mix of globalism, which the younger generation seem to love, and the EU. It's why SMEs are ambivalent towards or dislike the EU's bureaucratic tentacles and big internationals love it (much easier to lobby one organisation, plus they can afford the lawyers and accountants to jump through hoops).
However, I do agree that younger voters are less aware of the dangers of socialist bullshit and the benefits of capitalism. The argument was won decades ago but has ceased to be made because it became the consensus.
Anyways, even Capitalism has changed over the years as new technologies and knowledge force adaption into new ways. 20 years ago, it would not be possible for many of us in this forum to discuss events with each other, to obtain different views and gather information from so many sources.
New consensuses are being formed, whether classic Capitalism remains is doubtful too many are now questioning the corruption, perceived or not in the system, and they don't like how some avoid the laws and taxes that are enforced on them.0 -
That people even think there is equivalence between actual literal self identifying Nazis and SJWs is pathetic.0
-
This might be a good moment to repost this article:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
These people will probably not pay the slightest attention to Trump and Putin, because they will dismiss it as more 'fake news' from the liberal elite. He will still have a very solid support base in 2020.
The pertinent question however is whether he can hang on to those disillusioned democrats in Philadelphia, Michigan and Wisconsin. That might be more difficult. However, it also depends to a huge extent on the Democratic candidate, and with no current clear front-runner that remains (to quote another dodgy Donald) a known unknown.0 -
Mr. Eye, I agree entirely on consensus and new technology significantly changing the nature of the game.
Taxation is a difficult one to get right. The EU certainly showed how to bugger it up with their VAT idiocy.
Incidentally, just a wondering on the EU: is the EEA/EFTA back as an option?0 -
Oh no, someone got cross at my mild unthinking bigotry. They are just the same as that bloke advocating genocide.
Both sides bad.0 -
I'm identifying as a Nazi right now - of the grammar sort. Will people please remember that plurals don't need fecking apostrophes? Second person this morning to make that mistake!Alistair said:That people even think there is equivalence between actual literal self identifying Nazi's and SJWs is pathetic.
0 -
So I have just laid (bet against) Trump being the Republican nominee at the Betfair exchange level of 1.42 – which equates to a 70% chance.
My guess is that that this will ease in the aftermath of his talks with Mr. Putin and possibly offer short term trading opportunities.
Personally, I hate trading bets because I'm useless at judging how markets will move. However, I'd rate the chance of a second Trump nomination at well over 80% and perhaps into the low 90s.
His support among his base is phenomenal and they won't care about the Putin love-in.
That matters because turnout in primaries is low so as long as he gets his support out then he wins, comfortably.
Of course, to get there he has to avoid being impeached, dying or otherwise being removed from office however with partisan divisions as deep as they are, I don't think the chances of a successfully convicted impeachment are at all high and while he's a fat 70-something in a stressful job, he seems to mitigate that by only doing the bits that interest him, when they interest him.0 -
I admit I thought the Dems should have picked Clinton because they were up against Trump/crazy right winger and it was no time to be taking a risk. Maybe Sanders would have done better.IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
0 -
Autocorrect.ydoethur said:
I'm identifying as a Nazi right now - of the grammar sort. Will people please remember that plurals don't need fecking apostrophes? Second person this morning to make that mistake!Alistair said:That people even think there is equivalence between actual literal self identifying Nazi's and SJWs is pathetic.
0 -
It was said of Ronald Reagan that his basic policy was to do nothing. This was indeed his political philosophy ("don't just do something, stand there!") but it also left him time to think, if he felt up to it, or sleep, if he didn't.david_herdson said:While he's a fat 70-something in a stressful job, he seems to mitigate that by only doing the bits that interest him, when they interest him.
The mere fact that his administration ended mired in chaos and scandal was a minor matter, leading to possibly the greatest non-apology of all time over Iran-Contra.0 -
On current form, yes. Depends on whether they can find themselves a candidate who can rise above that while also keeping the noisy left on board (or at least, stop them from imposing themselves on the campaign).nielh said:
Its going to be WH2016 all over again. The left will keep making the same errors.TheJezziah said:
Nazi's on the one side... people who care about social justice on the other...nielh said:
This is also another problem. The democrats are infested with SJW tyrants. Which tyranny do you prefer?IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
To my mind, the betting opportunity is in backing a 2nd Trump term.
Yeah that's a tough one right there....0 -
A good workman doesn't blame his tools, Alistair.Alistair said:
Autocorrect.ydoethur said:
I'm identifying as a Nazi right now - of the grammar sort. Will people please remember that plurals don't need fecking apostrophes? Second person this morning to make that mistake!Alistair said:That people even think there is equivalence between actual literal self identifying Nazi's and SJWs is pathetic.
Admittedly, when it comes to Trump we have the option of blaming a tool...0 -
0
-
Mr Dancer, answering your question, not a clue. To be honest, I am expecting the much missed Brian Rix to appear and drop his trousers in Whitehall.....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eye, I agree entirely on consensus and new technology significantly changing the nature of the game.
Taxation is a difficult one to get right. The EU certainly showed how to bugger it up with their VAT idiocy.
Incidentally, just a wondering on the EU: is the EEA/EFTA back as an option?0 -
Why this transparently obvious point is lost on so many Leavers is a thread all on its own.Benpointer said:
Yes but we could have had the debate and reached agreement about what kind of relationship we wanted before invoking A50. And we could have refused to invoke it until the EU had given some kind of undertaking that what we wanted was possible.MarqueeMark said:
The EU made it clear nothing was going to happen on Brexit until we invoked Article 50. And even when we did invoke it, nothing of substance was going to be talked about until the size of the cheque the EU was going to receive was settled.Nigelb said:FPT
We had a choice about when to invoke A50; it might have been sensible to give some thought to what happened afterwards before we did. And I'm skeptical that another couple of years would have done anything but given May more time to prevaricate.ydoethur said:
Time limits are not unreasonable, but this is too short. They could have said five years or an agreed date prior to that.rcs1000 said:
Three seem to be a lot of people claiming credit for Article 50. Personally, I think it is a good thing. Negotiations to leave the EU would otherwise take about 50 yearsydoethur said:
For me, the most significant line in that was that it took four years to negotiate.OchEye said:Oh Dear! Perhaps we are leaving too soon, or is it the effectiveness of Liam Fox in getting trade negotiations with Japan? EU /Japan reduce all tariffs by 99%
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-japan-free-trade-agreement-defies-protectionism/a-44695274
Why did the (British) civil servant who drew up Article 50 only allow 2? Did he think nobody would ever use it, did he think the EU would show some common sense and flexibility, or was he just very stupid?
Actually come to think of it, options 1 and 2 would suggest a less than significant intellect as well...
This is also the key reason why talks are getting into a mess.
There are many ways Brexit could have been managed; we didn't choose any of them.0 -
Oh, that is brilliant. You're absolutely right: there's nothing in the constitution preventing a president driven from office from running again, or from winning and resuming the position.edmundintokyo said:
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
Correction Yes, there is something in the constitution that could prevent it but it isn't necessarily invoked upon a convicted impeachment and requires a second vote.
That said, I think if the GOP were willing to go as far as to convict Trump, they'd make damn sure he couldn't run again.0 -
Mr. Pointer/Mr. Topping, the EU was refusing to discuss anything until Article 50 was invoked. They wouldn't have given a nod to anything suggested.
That's not to say that May hasn't cocked this up, of course, just that EU intransigence is not a small factor in things turning out the way they have.0 -
The Cabinet could have decided what they actually wanted first..Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pointer/Mr. Topping, the EU was refusing to discuss anything until Article 50 was invoked. They wouldn't have given a nod to anything suggested.
That's not to say that May hasn't cocked this up, of course, just that EU intransigence is not a small factor in things turning out the way they have.0 -
I agree completely about the overuse of Nazi. Everything is the Nazi's these days and it really does lose the power of the word. Racist to a lesser extent, there are lots and lots of racists, far fewer that are actual neo Nazi's or something so close as to be worth the name.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jezziah, some newspaper reporting is atrocious (still can't quite believe the 'openly gay' line used against a judge) but it's rarely puritanical. Outraged, yes, and often politically biased this way or that but far less censorious or trying to limit what ordinary people can say or do.
Saturation of extreme terminology has also heavily diluted the impact (Nazis and racists being top of the list). It's idiotic and reduces the power of language when it comes to denouncing actual racists and Nazis.
Although to clarify the discussion was based around the worst of the supporters of the American parties so I was talking about the actual neo nazi's who support Trump rather than labelling the republicans in general.
Disagree on the Newspaper angle, although maybe I should say the media in general to use the bit you said 'The other is a politically correct gang of puritans, a mob that descends upon anybody doing or saying anything they deem impure (the professor who lost his job after a joke about female scientists springs to mind) to enforce by bullying their own hyper-politically correct worldview.'
That sounds exactly like the media in our country. Take the way the comments from the founder of Jewdas about Israel were taken...
This may just have been an attempt to smear Corbyn in that case but there is a large gang on the of our right wing media who have their own hyper-politically correct world view who try to bully people into not speaking up about certain countries.
I think the difference in our views is I might see protecting minorities and women as valid whereas you see them going over the top in their protection to the point of censorship and then the reverse when it comes to criticising Israel...
0 -
Mr. Freggles, agree entirely with that.
Slightly surprised there isn't more criticism in this thread of (on time-consumption basis) May's decision to hold an election when she did.0 -
The EU would not have wanted its 'ever-closer union' project put on indefinite ice by the UK's pending A50; it would have talked eventually.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Pointer/Mr. Topping, the EU was refusing to discuss anything until Article 50 was invoked. They wouldn't have given a nod to anything suggested.
That's not to say that May hasn't cocked this up, of course, just that EU intransigence is not a small factor in things turning out the way they have.
Invoking A50 (before we had a feckin' clue what we wanted post Brexit!) truly put all the cards in the EU's hand.0 -
Can’t happen.david_herdson said:
Oh, that is brilliant. You're absolutely right: there's nothing in the constitution preventing a president driven from office from running again, or from winning and resuming the position.edmundintokyo said:
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
‘Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.’
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/18/punishment-for-impeachment0 -
In which case the Trump base would tefuse to turn out in 2020 or go third party thus handing the election to Sanders or Warren.david_herdson said:
Oh, that is brilliant. You're absolutely right: there's nothing in the constitution preventing a president driven from office from running again, or from winning and resuming the position.edmundintokyo said:
PS Don't forget to consider the weirdly-possible edge case of "he gets impeached or 25th-amendment-ed and driven out of office, but still wins the 2020 GOP nomination".
Correction Yes, there is something in the constitution that could prevent it but it isn't necessarily invoked upon a convicted impeachment and requires a second vote.
That said, I think if the GOP were willing to go as far as to convict Trump, they'd make damn sure he couldn't run again.
The Tories have the same problem if hard Brexiteers stay at home or vote UKIP thus handing the next general election to Corbyn0 -
Mr. Jezziah, interested in your take on the banning of the 'beach body ready' bikini ad on the Tube. Would you see that as 'protecting women'?
On minorities, I think Labour needs to get its house in order there regarding anti-semitism. There's also the dread fear (driven by political correctness, of which SJWs are the vanguard) of racism accusations which led to Rotherham-type situations going on for so long and causing so much harm.0 -
It is a bit startling. But won't Trump just say "I never said that - Fake news"?rottenborough said:On Trump, this made me go wow a little:
https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/10189672614183444500 -
German poll averages (excluding surveys more than 3 weeks old):
CDU/CSU 30.2
SPD 17.5
AfD 16.1
Green 13.0
Left 9.8
FDP 8.6
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
Agree with this, but hoping to time it better this time. Have bet on Trump not to finish 1st term at 3.7 (and poorer odds from before).david_herdson said:
Personally, I hate trading bets because I'm useless at judging how markets will move. However, I'd rate the chance of a second Trump nomination at well over 80% and perhaps into the low 90s.
His support among his base is phenomenal and they won't care about the Putin love-in.
Hoping the Dems take the House and seriously go for impeachment in 2019.
Then at some point in the ensuing chaos, I imagine people will overreact and Trump finishing his term will drop to maybe 50% or less.
That's the plan anyway.0 -
There is almost no doubt in my mind he would have done better. The main attacks Trump had were all blunted against Sanders, against Sanders Trump would have looked more the establishment figure.rkrkrk said:
I admit I thought the Dems should have picked Clinton because they were up against Trump/crazy right winger and it was no time to be taking a risk. Maybe Sanders would have done better.IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
The Democrats may be able to cross the line with a centrist such is Trumps unpopularity now but they need to seriously think if it is worth risking another Trump term for it.
Apologies on the apostrophes, not sure what I'm doing with them usually.0 -
There's massive doubt that Bernie would have done better. His age, his politics and the fact that he's not a Democrat.TheJezziah said:
There is almost no doubt in my mind he would have done better. The main attacks Trump had were all blunted against Sanders, against Sanders Trump would have looked more the establishment figure.rkrkrk said:
I admit I thought the Dems should have picked Clinton because they were up against Trump/crazy right winger and it was no time to be taking a risk. Maybe Sanders would have done better.IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
The Democrats may be able to cross the line with a centrist such is Trumps unpopularity now but they need to seriously think if it is worth risking another Trump term for it.
Apologies on the apostrophes, not sure what I'm doing with them usually.0 -
Indeed. Trump would have labelled him Commie Bernie, or some such, which would have been a hard sell to middle America.MikeSmithson said:
There's massive doubt that Bernie would have done better. His age, his politics and the fact that he's not a Democrat.TheJezziah said:
There is almost no doubt in my mind he would have done better. The main attacks Trump had were all blunted against Sanders, against Sanders Trump would have looked more the establishment figure.rkrkrk said:
I admit I thought the Dems should have picked Clinton because they were up against Trump/crazy right winger and it was no time to be taking a risk. Maybe Sanders would have done better.IanB2 said:
Exactly. We talk about his 'base' as if it represents his entire support. Yet there are always swing voters. The Dem's problem however is who to choose. There will be a lot of pressure from the upcoming generation for following in Sanders's footsteps.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 100, supporters of any individual or party aren't a monolithic bloc. The last election was very close, and that was against a tired establishment figure who managed to deploy her resources in as poor a manner as those of Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia.
The Democrats may be able to cross the line with a centrist such is Trumps unpopularity now but they need to seriously think if it is worth risking another Trump term for it.
Apologies on the apostrophes, not sure what I'm doing with them usually.
Bernie was great as an insurgent candidate against Hillary, who didn't attract much negative campaigning from Hillary (because she didn't want to make it look like she was worried about losing), or from anyone else; nor much scrutiny from the media, who were far more interested in Trump - who was actually winning - than in an unusually successful fringe candidate.
Were Bernie to emerge as a genuine front-runner, the spotlight would be much harsher. And that's before the age issue and his lack of roots in the Democrats.0 -
No. It. Would. Not.Benpointer said:The EU would not have wanted its 'ever-closer union' project put on indefinite ice by the UK's pending A50; it would have talked eventually.
0
