politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tuesday may see the biggest change to the electoral process in

What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

https://twitter.com/MazherArshad/status/1059022494437380096

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Nothing to do with the fact that they exposed him as a liar over his African diamond mines? 'Fake news', indeed.

rpjs said:

HYUFD said:

The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years

Inclement weather over large parts of the US on Tuesday could have an impact on the election. In Florida storms are expected over the panhandle, the culturally, rather than geographically, "Southern" part of the state that leans Republican. The more Democratic actual south of the state is expected to have much better weather.

Trump has clearly upset God.

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MazherArshad/status/1059022494437380096

Cheats never prosper.

kle4 said:

rpjs said:

kle4 said:

What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

Most states already allow felons that have completed their sentence to vote, so it's not that exceptional. Also, unlike the UK and many other countries, where it's only serving prisoners (pace the ECHR) who are excluding from voting, most states that allow released felons to vote only allow them to do so when all parts of the sentence including supervised parole, probation etc, are completed. That's the model Florida will adopt if the measure passes.

That makes more sense then - I got the impression from american tv show jokes that almost no felons in the US could vote.

Supervised parole etc can last a very long time after release so yes, a lot of released felons are in practice disenfranchised.

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

I wonder why Banks didn't reach for the Webley before doing an interview 2 years ago for..er..CH4?

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.

I would have paid good money to hear you responding to Professor Yehudi Bauer giving a speech on this topic at Yad Vashem when I was there a few years back.

He muddled 'race' and 'species.'

I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

In defence of Channel 4 News, it's worth noting Jon Snow, rightly, pushed Corbyn hard on the money he was happy to take from Iranian state TV.

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....

As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

Also, he was talking utter shit.

Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.

But as Rees Mogg has demonstrated, politely talking utter shit can be quite persuasive for some people.

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

I was referring to his delivery, not his words. He didn't get flustered, or rant, or shout, so while what he said was rude, he didn't lose his cool,

Magic Grandpa could learn a lot from Mr Banks.....

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

Also, he was talking utter shit.

Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.

Vorderman??!!

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....

As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.

There is other polling in Florida showing this measure at or just above the 60% needed for it to pass. I wonder whether this is one of those issues where voters might be less liberal in reality than when they answer polls. To over simplify a bit the currently excluded felons are overwhelmingly Black men and Black men overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Although the socioeconomic group most impacted has very low turnouts. Regardless even a 20% turnout amongst a newly enfranchised 1.5m is 300K votes. If the demographics of that 300k lean Democratic... Wellit would have stoped Bush vs Gore going to the Supreme Court. I just wonder given how divided Florida is, given the racial subtext and given the need for a supermajority whether the polls will be correct.

Incidently Michigan which Trump won narrowly has an even more radical set of Voter Registration reforms on the ballot and polling has them passing overwhelmingly. The potentional partisan impact is more mixed with easier postal voting perhaps compensating for other measures than make it easier to register economically marginalised groups.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....

As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.

There is no single ‘objective test’.
It’s complicated.

Mr. T, genetic differences between races, if we use that term, are really, really minor.

Hair is an interesting divergence. Not just colour, but fineness, frizziness etc. Varies from European to African to Persian to Far Eastern.

Single and double eyelids is another.

There's a minor difference between limb and height proportions, I believe, between certainly the Far East and maybe Asia generally with Europe (read in a karate book once that the forms had to be slightly altered for Westerners because of this).

But when you look at that, and the variety of other species, it's really small potatoes.

SeanT said:

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

notme said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Excepientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

This iss, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.

The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.

Australian aborigines (especially those from the far north of Queensland, the Torres Strait, Tiwi islands, etc) seem to me the most obvious example of a discrete human race, clearly distinct from, say, Europeans or Chinese.

Interestingly, DNA analysis shows that long ago Australian aborigines interbred with an unknown hominid species (NOT Neanderthal, or Denisovan - who interbred with Europeans and Asians)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
this word in polite circles.

In pretty well the same way that aether and phlogiston aren’t talked about much in science anymore.
Though with added poliitical overtones.

We basically agree, you're just angrier and have a smaller cranial size, because of your race.

I’m just less wedded to antique terms, or genial abuse.
Not angry with you at all, Sean.

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

You think?

I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.

He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.

Also, he was talking utter shit.

Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.

Vorderman??!!

Letters not jump to conclusions.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

SeanT said:

Alistair said:

SeanT said:

Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....

As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.

There is no single ‘objective test’.
It’s complicated.

I accept that it's complicated, but it's something that should be sorted out IMHO. The original post was on this article (h ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6350675/White-theatre-director-classes-born-African.html ). If there is no objective test then Mr Lennon's claim may be as legitimate as anybody elses's.

Indeed it might. And if you’re looking for scientific help in devising some sort of DNA profiling to determine government grants, it could be rather a long wait.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. B, you'll be deriding phrenology next.

On a more serious note, would you abolish all racial quotas, targets, etc?

I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but the practicalities of declaring race irrelevant/non-existent would be... interesting.

I apologise for banging on about it, but if you don't have an objective test...how do you know if the quotas have been met?

YellowSubmarine said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.

Delicious.

Bait, reel and release.

Casino_Royale said:

I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

Just half a step away from “Gallic twats” mode again I see, Casino. How odd life must look, viewed from your crusty Union Jack y-fronts.

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1059106103512965120

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1059106103512965120

If O’Rourke can win TX, he can take the White House, should he run.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/MazherArshad/status/1059022494437380096

Wonder how the Indian bookies did?

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1059106103512965120

Ohhhhh!

I'm on at 5.5

I called it before anyone else*.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/09/11/if-ted-cruz-is-running-ads-like-this-then-im-concluding-his-campaign-is-in-trouble/

*Maybe

Mr. Borough, hope it comes off. I backed him at shorter odds.

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1059106103512965120

If O’Rourke can win TX, he can take the White House, should he run.

If the polls are wrong in Texas, then they are wrong in the same direction and have been wrong all along. Looking at the curves, something is going to have be seriously wrong for Beto to win.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/tx/texas_senate_cruz_vs_orourke-6310.html

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

(*) aside from the obvious ...

MaxPB said:

Anazina said:

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.

Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Anazina said:

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.

Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.

True, but given that it's publicly owned it should have some kind of remit for balance rather than being a stupidly right on "progressive" anti-leave propaganda channel.

Casino_Royale said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.

Delicious.

Bait, reel and release.

As far as I remember YS is English and approximately in favour of the Union. Still, you coarse fisherman are happy catching anything.

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Anazina said:

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.

Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.

True, but given that it's publicly owned it should have some kind of remit for balance rather than being a stupidly right on "progressive" anti-leave propaganda channel.

Leaving the vitriol aside for a moment, you see this when organisations contract. Those who remain (pun not intended) are convinced that their way is the good way, and it becomes a feedback loop.

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

(*) aside from the obvious ...

It was a feeble attempt at humour.

I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.

You were always a punny guy

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059145051555708928

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

(*) aside from the obvious ...

It was a feeble attempt at humour.

I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.

You were always a punny guy

Oh, Fawkes off

Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...

He was only guying you.

I think I'm getting burned, actually.

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

(*) aside from the obvious ...

It was a feeble attempt at humour.

I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.

You were always a punny guy

Oh, Fawkes off

Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...

He was only guying you.

I think I'm getting burned, actually.

Just a light roasting.

Wood you stake your reputation on that? If so I fear you're rather green.

rcs1000 said:

MaxPB said:

Anazina said:

Pulpstar said:

notme said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1059106987345133568

Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.

Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.

Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.

So what you are saying is*...

*TM Cathy Newman

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1059106103512965120

It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.

If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

And I am no fan of Banks.

Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.

I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

(*) aside from the obvious ...

It was a feeble attempt at humour.

I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.

You were always a punny guy

Oh, Fawkes off

Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...

He was only guying you.

I think I'm getting burned, actually.

Just a light roasting.

Wood you stake your reputation on that? If so I fear you're rather green.

That’s an incendiary statement likely to kindle resentment.

And that was quite a rocket.

Have a good evening.

You’re right - let’s not start a flame war; we don’t want to extinguish our regard for each other.