Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

Just switched on Vince.

Seems to be talking about replacing himself with a robot.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

A robot would have far more idea than Cable. If I was a lib dem I would despair

I also do not understand why conference speeches are delivered in the afternoon rather than a sensible morning slot.

Vince Cable was never, ever as good as Vince Cable thought he was.

rottenborough said:

Just switched on Vince.

I think you should try turning him off and back on again....

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best:
“It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats

Yet, strangely enough, the one time the Lib Dems were in government now seems like a halcyon period.

It was a very good government. They should have told people so. (Not that it would have helped much - "the little party always gets smashed").

My favourite thing about that article is its subheading - "To cement its identity in future coalitions, the party needs to own departments." Ah, for the optimism of 2014!

Good afternoon, my fellow neurotic chasms.

MyBurningEars said:

Tissue_Price said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best:
“It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats

Yet, strangely enough, the one time the Lib Dems were in government now seems like a halcyon period.

It was a very good government. They should have told people so. (Not that it would have helped much - "the little party always gets smashed").

My favourite thing about that article is its subheading - "To cement its identity in future coalitions, the party needs to own departments." Ah, for the optimism of 2014!

They should have done from the start. Picasso > Turquoise, as I remember discussing on here.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Impressive from the Foreign Secretary:
https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/status/1042028969657286657

Next PM nailed on after that. If only someone had tipped him at 100/1.

His wife is Japanese isn’t she?

No surprise to see him fluent in the lingo.

Chinese .

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

And Labour on 30%.....

AllyPally_Rob said:

Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections

[snip]

So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.

As you rightly say, to get a majority the Dems need to win 8 out of the 10 competitive races (including TN and TX as competitive).

If those were independent events each with a 75% chance of coming good for them, that just pips a 50% probability overall (52.56% according to my calculations). OK, they are not independent, but the nationwide swing to the Dems is already in the pundits' subjective assessments and state-wide polling, so I think you are overstating it. Nate Silver's current statistical model shows a 32.5% chance, which looks realistic to me.

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

And Labour on 30%.....

If politics weren't so polarised by Brexit as well as anti-Tory and anti-Labour voting, you could easily imagine fragmentation as in other European countries, with the Greens also picking up support.

One needs PR to fragment.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour figures set out 'Bolshevik' plan to restrict Tom Watson's power if Jeremy Corbyn resigns

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/18/labour-figures-set-plan-restrict-tom-watsons-power-jeremy-corbyn/

And what are the moderates going to do about this "Bolshevik" plot...absolutely sweet FA.

It's all about democracy innit guv? Power to the people an' all that. Up the Revolution!

*wanders off whistling The Red Flag whilst imitating Citizen Smith*

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

And Labour on 30%.....

If politics weren't so polarised by Brexit as well as anti-Tory and anti-Labour voting, you could easily imagine fragmentation as in other European countries, with the Greens also picking up support.

One needs PR to fragment.

Not necessarily. Regional fragmentation à la the SNP and Northern Irish parties can also happen.

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

Afternoon all

The financial crisis in local Government gets closer to home for Messrs Hammond, Hunt and Gove (among others):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-45552324

Londoners are arrogant and insular according to a new You Gov report

Hard to argue with that

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

And Labour on 30%.....

If politics weren't so polarised by Brexit as well as anti-Tory and anti-Labour voting, you could easily imagine fragmentation as in other European countries, with the Greens also picking up support.

That's a lot of ifs....

And the Greens would actually have to offer something to pick up support.

Their lack of impact has been compounded by their lacklustre new leadership team.

Plus they are not without internal issues that are causing them to look inwards - such as Trans rights, not paying both joint leaders equally and their own antisemitic fringe.

Caroline Lucas alternating between being angry and being earnest is hardly reason to switch to them at the moment.

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

oxfordsimon said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

And Labour on 30%.....

If politics weren't so polarised by Brexit as well as anti-Tory and anti-Labour voting, you could easily imagine fragmentation as in other European countries, with the Greens also picking up support.

That's a lot of ifs....

And the Greens would actually have to offer something to pick up support.

Their lack of impact has been compounded by their lacklustre new leadership team.

Plus they are not without internal issues that are causing them to look inwards - such as Trans rights, not paying both joint leaders equally and their own antisemitic fringe.

Caroline Lucas alternating between being angry and being earnest is hardly reason to switch to them at the moment.

It was very much a hypothetical comment.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Londoners are arrogant and insular according to a new You Gov report

Hard to argue with that

According to provincials.

And what do those idiots know?

I thought you were a provincial now??

I've got a foot in both camps for a few more weeks/months, depending on how my flat sale goes. I reserve the right to be rude about everyone (so no change there then).

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

Yes, but not clear whether the manoeuvres are aimed at making John McDonnell leader, or someone else to carry the true flame. Maybe he hasn't decided yet.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Londoners are arrogant and insular according to a new You Gov report

Hard to argue with that

I wonder what percentage of Londoners have visited other places in the UK, compared to the percentage of non-Londoners who've visited London.

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

But Nick Palmer has repeatedly assured us that he wouldn't move against Corbyn or seek the leadership.

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

I have a 50/1 bet on John McDonnell for next Labour leader, courtesy of Bet365. I tipped this in 2015.

Amazingly, he wouldn't be my best result in this particular market, or even in my top three.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour figures set out 'Bolshevik' plan to restrict Tom Watson's power if Jeremy Corbyn resigns

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/18/labour-figures-set-plan-restrict-tom-watsons-power-jeremy-corbyn/

And what are the moderates going to do about this "Bolshevik" plot...absolutely sweet FA.

Given the appalling way opponents of Corbyn aimed to keep him off the ballot when he was facing a leadership challenge I think it makes sense that his supporters would be wary about an interim leader trying to subvert the rules.

Mr. Gin, the censorious gimpishness and technological illiteracy of the EU is something to behold, whether it's the #VATmess, the antique books delinquency, or the latest clampdown on harmless memes.

Regardless of staying in or leaving the EU, it's bloody alarming.

Not that UK politics is immune to that. Both May and Cooper (and Rudd, when she was in Cabinet) have displayed a weird belief that algorithms can use magic to make the interweb safe for everyone. And the less said about the cretinous attempt to ban encryption the better.

Tissue_Price said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

But Nick Palmer has repeatedly assured us that he wouldn't move against Corbyn or seek the leadership.

Loyalist behaves as unthinking loyalist. Once the [King/Chair] is dead, long live the [King/Queen/Chair]. Tick tock etc.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Gin, the censorious gimpishness and technological illiteracy of the EU is something to behold, whether it's the #VATmess, the antique books delinquency, or the latest clampdown on harmless memes.

Regardless of staying in or leaving the EU, it's bloody alarming.

Not that UK politics is immune to that. Both May and Cooper (and Rudd, when she was in Cabinet) have displayed a weird belief that algorithms can use magic to make the interweb safe for everyone. And the less said about the cretinous attempt to ban encryption the better.

Yep, politicians and tech should never meet.

But I've noticed the latest madness from the EU with Articles 11 and 13 has even upset quite a few young (former?) Remainers so every cloud and all that...

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

That must be the greatest worry for the Conservatives. McDonnell is far better at politics than Corbyn, indeed he would be the best Labour leader in terms of doing politics since Blair. He plays the political game far better than most of the current crop of Conservatives and would, in a GE, run rings round the likes of Javid and Hunt.

The truth is the policies would stop him getting elected but he plays the political game well and is, I suspect, like all good politicians, absolutely ruthless.

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

I am sure someone mentioned on here that he had some health concerns which might make it less likely that he would push for the leadership. But not sure what they are...

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

I am sure someone mentioned on here that he had some health concerns which might make it less likely that he would push for the leadership. But not sure what they are...

Someone said here he's had a heart-attack.

AlastairMeeks said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Tissue_Price said:

Amusing line from Tom Harris. Something is surely up; this looks more like a plan than a contingency plan to me.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1042057197461676032

Some of us (well, me) have been saying for some time that Jeremy Corbyn's age means that the possibility of him standing down soon should not be underestimated. This looks like part of a retirement plan to me.

It is also very clear that John McDonnell is on manoeuvres. Watch this space.

I have a 50/1 bet on John McDonnell for next Labour leader, courtesy of Bet365. I tipped this in 2015.

Amazingly, he wouldn't be my best result in this particular market, or even in my top three.

I have more runners and riders (both backed and laid) in the next Labour leader market than a typical grand national field.

Philip_Thompson said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

I am sure someone mentioned on here that he had some health concerns which might make it less likely that he would push for the leadership. But not sure what they are...

Someone said here he's had a heart-attack.

McDonnell, who hardly drinks and doesn’t smoke, suffered a heart attack in 2013 and was forced to take time off. His new job is hardly likely to help his blood pressure.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/15/john-mcdonnell-unreconstructed-on-the-left-but-with-allies-on-the-right

FrancisUrquhart said:

JohnRussell said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

This is what makes McIRA far more dangerous than moronic Corbyn.

McDonnell is uber creepy and insincere. He lacks Jezza's charm, cant see people taking to him.

Well he appears to have conned Mumsnet.

Well, Mumsnet is the Labour Party on maternity leave, so he has a head start.

Interesting twitter thread discussion between Rob Ford & others about immigration:

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1042008178475642885

stodge said:

AndyJS said:

Things you never expected to read in The Spectator:

"How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet
James Kirkup

As so often these days, if you want real political insight, go to Mumsnet. In a web chat there today, John McDonnell has offered extensive proof that – whatever you think of his politics and policies – he is an extremely professional and skilful political communicator."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

That must be the greatest worry for the Conservatives. McDonnell is far better at politics than Corbyn, indeed he would be the best Labour leader in terms of doing politics since Blair. He plays the political game far better than most of the current crop of Conservatives and would, in a GE, run rings round the likes of Javid and Hunt.

The truth is the policies would stop him getting elected but he plays the political game well and is, I suspect, like all good politicians, absolutely ruthless.

Policies such as rail and water nationalisation? I think McD would go in with the popular stuff and build from there.

But, I do think his personal health rules him out.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting twitter thread discussion between Rob Ford & others about immigration:

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1042008178475642885

Simon Jenkins is making exactly the point I was making earlier today.

The really important thing to realise is that this concern about cultural issues (being able to control their community's character and pace of change, as he puts it) is not the same as xenophobia, racism or bigotry (although it can, if ignored or slighted, morph into those). It's a perfectly healthy and valid concern.

As an example, I think it would be fair to say no-one in the UK is prejudiced against Swedes. If a Swedish family moved in next door, they'd be welcome anywhere in the country.

But if in a village of 250 people, 50 Swedish families moved in over a short time, so that the whole character of the village was suddenly changed and Swedish became the first language of most children in the local school, it would be a different reaction. It's not about hostility to the incomers themselves, but about wanting to preserve the familiar character of home.

This is why things like the ludicrous attempt to stop people using completely harmless phrases such as 'whiter than white' gets people's hackles rising so much - who the hell are these people coming in to tell us that we're not allowed to use our own language?

Mr. Sandpit, I can understand them not getting the details. But this is basic, obvious stuff that can be learnt in minutes.

I'm a thousand miles away from being tech-savvy yet I (and practically everyone here) seems to have a better understanding than the politicians. It'd help if the media reported things a bit more and understood them better too. For all the media storm over the EU it was on Twitter I saw coverage of the copyright nonsense from the EU, not the broadcast media.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting twitter thread discussion between Rob Ford & others about immigration:

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1042008178475642885

the Guardian at least is making an effort to understand why the EUref was lost - who knows PB remainers might eventually start ( i know I know )

I always enjoy John Harris who actually leaves London and goes see for himself

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/17/britains-insecure-towns-left-behind

MarqueeMark said:

Tissue_Price said:

What is the point of the Lib Dems? Explanation 9 is the best:
“It’s basically just a drinking society for people who like politics,” someone told me. Like the Sealed Knot re-enacting battles without the danger of bloodshed, the Lib Dems re-enact politics without the danger of power.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/09/what-point-liberal-democrats

Without the danger of bloodshed??? Have you seen how they all carry a sharp knife, for the plunging between the shoulder blades of their potential leadership rivals....

You`re getting mixed up with the Tories, Mr Mark. You spend far too long in bad company, I think, and are starting to think that everybody else behaves like they do.

rcs1000 said:

rpjs said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.

[...]

So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.

Looks to me that the Ds are set to pick up AZ, NV and TN of those three, and TX (Texas!) is looking a lot more likely a D pickup than it should. Against that FL, IN, and ND are looking iffy, although I think the Ds will retain FL on balance. All in all I think the best the GOP can hope for is maintaining the current 51/49 balance in their favour, and a 50/50 split is probably the most likely outcome (Ds pick up AZ, NV and TN but fail to retain IN and ND). Mike Pence will be busy.

West Virginia voted for Trump by a 'uge margin, and that's up. The same is true of Montana. And Claire McCaskill looks iffy in Missouri.

If the Dems hold onto two of those three, they will have had a good night.

A lot of times incumbency trumps (see what I did there) other considerations, and appears to be working in the Dems favour in those three states. I think the Dems will retain all three. WV in particular won't even be close.

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting twitter thread discussion between Rob Ford & others about immigration:

https://twitter.com/epkaufm/status/1042008178475642885

the Guardian at least is making an effort to understand why the EUref was lost - who knows PB remainers might eventually start ( i know I know )

I always enjoy John Harris who actually leaves London and goes see for himself

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/17/britains-insecure-towns-left-behind

Not much sign of Brexit or the Tories addressing those issues though is there?

Brexit is a solution looking for a problem.

Apart from a few places in the Fens with recent EU migration, there was an inverse relationship of percentage of the population born abroad and voting Leave. Many of the strongest Leave voting areas in the old coalfields of Wales or the NE have had nearly no inward migration.

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Vince Cable is monotonous and rambling. He is the perfect speaker to send an audience to sleep

The LDs would probably be on 15% with a different leader.

Maybe they could find someone who thinks it is immoral to be gay. That would chime well with their likely voters.

We need Lamb, but we are not going to get him. He is out of tune on Europe, though that would matter less post Brexit.

Sean_F said:

rpjs said:

rcs1000 said:

rpjs said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.

[...]

So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.

Looks to me that the Ds are set to pick up AZ, NV and TN of those three, and TX (Texas!) is looking a lot more likely a D pickup than it should. Against that FL, IN, and ND are looking iffy, although I think the Ds will retain FL on balance. All in all I think the best the GOP can hope for is maintaining the current 51/49 balance in their favour, and a 50/50 split is probably the most likely outcome (Ds pick up AZ, NV and TN but fail to retain IN and ND). Mike Pence will be busy.

West Virginia voted for Trump by a 'uge margin, and that's up. The same is true of Montana. And Claire McCaskill looks iffy in Missouri.

If the Dems hold onto two of those three, they will have had a good night.

A lot of times incumbency trumps (see what I did there) other considerations, and appears to be working in the Dems favour in those three states. I think the Dems will retain all three. WV in particular won't even be close.

What has happened in those three States (and North Dakota and Indiana) is they've shifted Red at a very rapid rate. That doesn't mean they can't be held, but it does make it much harder than previously. People have become so much more partisan.

Here's the issue though Sean. In the last 5 'Wave Elections' (1994, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2014), there have been 54 incumbent senators on the right side of the wave, all 54 have won election. In fact I think you'd have to go back to 1982 when Howard Cannon was defeated in Nevada to find an incumbent senator who wasn't re-elected in a wave year for their party. So basically 36 years of history say the Dems will hold their incumbent seats.

rcs1000 said:

rpjs said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Off Topic - Thoughts on the US Midterm Senate elections.

[...]

So the Dems need to pick up 2 out of 4 in NV, AZ, TN, TX, while hold the rest of their seats. Personally I wouldn't bet against that happening and would at least rate it a 50/50 chance.

Looks to me that the Ds are set to pick up AZ, NV and TN of those three, and TX (Texas!) is looking a lot more likely a D pickup than it should. Against that FL, IN, and ND are looking iffy, although I think the Ds will retain FL on balance. All in all I think the best the GOP can hope for is maintaining the current 51/49 balance in their favour, and a 50/50 split is probably the most likely outcome (Ds pick up AZ, NV and TN but fail to retain IN and ND). Mike Pence will be busy.

West Virginia voted for Trump by a 'uge margin, and that's up. The same is true of Montana. And Claire McCaskill looks iffy in Missouri.

If the Dems hold onto two of those three, they will have had a good night.

The key question may be the extent to which traditional Republican voters see President Trump as sui generis. Will they say to themselves, President Trump clearly does not believe in small government, balanced budgets, free trade, or any other proclaimed GOP values, so I must abstain or vote for someone else, or will they say, President Trump is a moron but is not connected to that fine, upstanding Republican Senator Rebecca Mainstream so I can vote for her?