politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ted Cruz is running ads like this then I’m concluding his c

What, first?

Ted Cruz favourables are net negative, in Texas, so that doesn't help him either.

I think Texas and Florida could both flip this time around, which would be mildly amusing.

The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

Re the US, worth noting that Mitt Romney will become a Republican Senator (unless the Dems win Utah, which seems... unlikely), and he is notoriously independently minded. So, in a 50:50 split world, and especially given Susan Collins in Maine is up for re-election in 2020, then the Senate might pose Trump quite a lot of trouble.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.

MarqueeMark said:

JackW said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.

You have too little faith in Putin, Comrade...he will see to it that his Little Helper gets enough "help".

A state visit from The Dear Leader in North Korea the day before voting will also ensure a 99.999% vote for Trump and the GOP. A new branch of Dictators4Us coming to a country near you soon ....

Good morning, everyone.

Put a small sum on. A few F1 markets are up, but most not yet. Will check when the full set's up for potential early bets. The win market indicates the bookies reckon it'll be a three horse race.

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

It is quite possible, the GOP candidates are trailing in states they hold like Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee and now Texas is almost tied while the Democrats lead in most states they hold.

Even if the GOP lose the House and Senate though Trump should not be completely written off, Bill Clinton saw the Democrats lose the House and Senate in 1994 and was re elected and both Eisenhower in 1954 and Truman in 1946 also saw their parties lose the House and Senate in their first midterms and were re elected.

As long as his base is behind him Trump also likely wins the primaries again

Nigelb said:

The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

https://twitter.com/Aggerscricket/status/1039266965536350208

The odds on the Democrats in Texas are unattractive. Which polls have put them ahead? None that I've seen. They regularly flatter to deceive there, and I'm not sure you can read much into Cruz running an aggressive ad (that's just how US politics goes and not a particular indicator he's in big trouble).

MarqueeMark said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Nigelb said:

The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

https://twitter.com/Aggerscricket/status/1039266965536350208

An uglier Piers Morgan, covered in slap as he goes out to do panto in Hartlepool....as Widow T'wanker

Do you mind?

Some of us are eating!

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

Sandpit said:

JackW said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.

It certainly won’t be dull, that’s for sure! As you say, the potential for differential turnout is a big one - will Trump’s fans turn out to vote for a generic Republican rather than the man himself?

That question might be better posed the other way round: will voters who have deserted Trump nevertheless support mainstream GOP candidates?

On topic, backing the Dems to take the House at over 1.55 on Betfair seems a far better bet than backing the Republicans to keep the senate for all sorts of reasons.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

Why would they be losing states in this year? Local issues? This doesn't seem like a year for blue losses otherwise.

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.

Betfair have a three-way market on the Senate, with no overall control being the middle option (maybe some value at 3.95) and it being made clear in the bet rules that independents are just that, even if they caucus with one side or the other.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

Good piece, and a worthwhile reminder that most of the public don’t follow things as much as we do.

“But 60% of all voters still agree with the statement: “I no longer care how or when we leave the EU, I just want it over and done with.”

“ “I don’t think I’ve heard anything about Brexit since the vote itself,” one young voter declares in a focus group. The participants were selected for readiness to switch between leave and remain positions.“

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.

My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.

Betfair have a three-way market on the Senate, with no overall control being the middle option (maybe some value at 3.95) and it being made clear in the bet rules that independents are just that, even if they caucus with one side or the other.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987

I agree on those rules that NOC looks the value bet. I am not sure that these small margins make much difference (other than for betting purposes of course) for Trump on most business,however, as it will still be easy to block legislation. It might mean he has more problems with his nominees for the SC.

Charles said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.

You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war

No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.

You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war

No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).

Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

Alanbrooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

... until their job moves to the EU.

logical_song said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

... until their job moves to the EU.

thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.

You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war

No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).

Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.

One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.

And the Scottish system allowed much more flexibility that in England, where only three or four choices are made at 16. I did Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Economics at A level, dropped History, Geography and Latin at 14.

Roger said:

OT. What's happened to John McDonnell? He's morphed from avuncular great uncle to something quite creepy.

Must be mixing with his old union buddies.....

That avuncular great uncle act was never remotely convincing.....

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.

You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war

No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).

Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.

One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.

I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.

Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


*The one exception of course being PPE.

SandyRentool said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

DavidL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

Other than his kids ?

I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!

Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.

Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

Napoleon III

And that was the quietest part of his sex life!

It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.

You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war

No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).

Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.

One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.

I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.

Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


*The one exception of course being PPE.

TBH, not sure I agree. The IB seems pretty thorough.

Mr. Roger, same as he ever was.

Tennis: umpires are reportedly considering refusing to officiate at Serena Williams' matches. Lack of support from the WTA is thought to be a prime cause.

Quite agree. Also feel a lot of sympathy for Naomi Osaka.

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

It makes one misstep.

" Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

Which ignores the 12%/4m people who voted UKIP at the GE and who unambiguously wanted the UK to leave the EU, wanted a referendum to have the opportunity to express their wishes, and had been effectively disenfranchised prior to the referendum announcement.

Now of course this was otherwise also electoral planning by Dave but that is a whole slug of the electorate who were given a voice. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.

Well you can argue all day on this, to me Dave simply was bad at party management, a lot of the UKIP vote would have stayed blue if hed been better at it. Either way Brexit is a Cameron failure and ultimately what he will be remembered for.

Alanbrooke said:

TOPPING said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

It makes one misstep.

" Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

Which ignores the 12%/4m people who voted UKIP at the GE and who unambiguously wanted the UK to leave the EU, wanted a referendum to have the opportunity to express their wishes, and had been effectively disenfranchised prior to the referendum announcement.

Now of course this was otherwise also electoral planning by Dave but that is a whole slug of the electorate who were given a voice. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.

Well you can argue all day on this, to me Dave simply was bad at party management, a lot of the UKIP vote would have stayed blue if hed been better at it. Either way Brexit is a Cameron failure and ultimately what he will be remembered for.

Nah - your visceral hatred dislike of politicians is, as it always seems to be, clouding your judgement. 4m people voted UKIP, the most successful single issue pressure group evah. They expressly wanted the UK to leave the EU and it was entirely legitimate for a political leader to include their demands in any manifesto. Much better than Ed or Polly dismissing their concerns as those of the uninformed and misguided*.

*of course they were and are uninformed and misguided but that doesn't mean they should be denied a political voice.

Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.

Alanbrooke said:

logical_song said:

Alanbrooke said:

logical_song said:

Alanbrooke said:

MarqueeMark said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

"Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."

good article

a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public

... until their job moves to the EU.

thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss

Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens.
Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.

oh dont be silly

multi nats have been closing UK facilities for years because were the cheapest place to sack workers - no social plan, few legal problems cheap redundancy. There are loads of examples.

The set up in the EU argument died on the accession of the Visegrad 4, suddenly we were no llonger the cheapest labour in town and the UK didnt have the social protections of mainland Europe. As a result it has been attrective for multinats to sell in the UK but move operations to lower cost countries or lower tax regimes.

UK workers have been watching their jobs go offshore for the last 20 years

Companies have also been slowly offshoring their back offices and support services such as call centres, although they are slowly coming back as the true costs of this become more obvious. Ask British Airways how outsourcing their IT department to Tata in India is going at the moment...

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

That would be a spoiled ballot paper from me with those 2 options. (not something i've ever done before)

AlastairMeeks said:

NickPalmer said:

Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

It's unusually poor for Rafael Behr, obviously arguing backwards from a personal position (some parts of which are well made, other parts of which are articles of faith) and as a result hopelessly muddled. He's happy to treat an anecdote from a single participant in a focus group as gospel, while brushing aside the polling he mentions showing rising support for a second referendum and the small but growing lead for Remain in favour of a separate poll with a seriously leading question.

In any case, boredom with Brexit is unlikely to make it go away. Whether the public like it or not (newsflash: they don't), they're going to have to keep thinking about it for years to come. The months ahead are only going to intensify that.

Quite.
People were/are pretty bored with austerity (as was also the case in the post-war years, of course). That hardly removed its salience as a political issue.

Nigelb said:

Raikkonen out at Ferrari.... and to drive for Sauber next year.

Swap with Leclerc. Not sure Seb will be too happy about that, the kid’s damn quick.

Alanbrooke said:

visceral hatred - no.

disappointment in the current crop- yes

4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.

Of course in these post-centre days that would be called conviction politics.

He told them to sod off and yet they still hang around, like a bad smell. Where I campaigned for the Cons at GE2017 (a constituency which went from being a Lab/Con marginal to a 12,000 Lab majority), a popular refrain from previous Cons voters was about the UKIP-isation of the party.

I, and I suspect many many others, would kill to get Dave back, right now. Who is your poster-boy/girl politician then? Like the ERG it's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to have an original thought.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pubgoer, which option would lead to a spoiled ballot for you?

Mr. B, bit of a shame. Surprised Raikkonen's hanging around, to be honest.

Also, Sauber will have a world champion driver. McLaren will not.

A choice of Remain or TM's capitualtion agreement in a notional 2nd referendum.

TOPPING said:

ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.

Mr. Pubgoer, cheers for the clarification.

Aye, if I were seeking to reverse the decision last time, that'd be the option pairing I'd go for.

It'd have, er, dramatic consequences for the political scene, though.

AlastairMeeks said:

TOPPING said:

ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.

Less disgusting than you might think - I actually tried it over the weekend with a 1730 Palo Cortado sherry.

Of course my senses by the time we got there might have been a bit numbed.

I think from scratch now laying the GOP in the Senate is the best bet for the Senate.

They have 47 seats RCP consider safe with highly likely MS2. That gets to 48, which means Democrat Maj bets fall short (At least for Betfair exchange rules).

There are 9 toss ups according to the polling. Perhaps NOM is the best bet, but it is a narrow target - and if the GOP get spanked everywhere does something odd happen in MS2 or Nebraska ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?

What happens if you help his team mate move to another team so removing Vettel's preferred option and leaving him with a choice of Leclerc or Ocon....

The Sauber share scheme seems tailor made to ensure Kimmie moved..

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?

It is possible Vettel thought that too. However thinking something to be so and the actuality can be related but quite different.

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TOPPING said:

ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.

Less disgusting than you might think - I actually tried it over the weekend with a 1730 Palo Cortado sherry.

Of course my senses by the time we got there might have been a bit numbed.

poached pear is excellent

a point where we agree !