politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg slumps sharply in the nomination betting after comin
Options
Comments
-
Northern Ireland is in a great position post Brexit, in a customs union and most of the single market and with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland so in a better position economically than GB in terms of trade with the EU but also still technically part of the UK with a UK government committed to minimise checks on goods going from GB to NI and vice versa, so also in a better position economically than the Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB.FF43 said:
Will the UK government impose two way checks on goods as they have agreed in the protocol so goods entering into NI can freely flow in and out of the Republic? This will impose very significant costs on NI businesses that trade with the rUK, to the extent of bankrupting quite a few of them on their current business model. In that case will business look to EU trade, which is frictionless and freeflow? Given all that do you accept my option 1 of a NI becoming part of the Irish sphere the likely one? Furthermore, that there is no prospect at all of the status quo holding?HYUFD said:
The Irish border will remain exactly as it was before Brexit as per the GFAFF43 said:
I suspect there isn't a huge groundswell of opinion in NI for a united Ireland, but when the status quo is apparently not an option, you have to choose one of the alternatives. The alternatives don't look attractive from a NI perspective, hence the absolute rejection across the board for Johnson's shabby protocol deal.AlastairMeeks said:
So what will happen?
1. The UK actually implements the sea border it agreed with the EU. As the land border will be open and the sea border imposes major costs on what passes for a NI economy, the orientation of that economy will probably switch to the south from the east. Add in the facts that most NI people have Irish/EU passports and EU legislation will have greater immediate impact on them than UK equivalents, we are likely to see NI move into an Irish sphere whether or not it formally separates from the UK.
2. The UK doesn't implement the sea border it agreed with the EU. The hard border switches to the land border. Most thinking people realise this would be a disaster and there are likely IMO to be very urgent calls to get NI formally into the Republic.
Either way, we are likely to greater integration of NI into Ireland, revealing unionists' massive strategic error in undermining the status quo that was their best friend.
Why would they want to change that?1 -
All the crooked, immoral, and in some cases criminal things that Trump and the GOP will do to win the election. It will not be a fair fight.contrarian said:In Trump folk on here seem very sure of a candidate who doesn;t appear to be doing that well in the polls I see posted. Either equal or behind.
What am I missing?0 -
43% of Northern Irish voters voted for Unionist parties compared to only 38% for Nationalist partiesSunil_Prasannan said:
Aren't there a record low number of Unionist MPs in NI?HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=200 -
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html0 -
Do you ever get tired of furiously masturbating over your love of the EU?FF43 said:
Given the alternative to the ECJ is unilateral decision on adequacy by EU committee - an adequacy assessment that they can remove at whim - I would suggest ECJ oversight brings legal objectivity and protection for UK interests that at the end of the day are the weaker party.HYUFD said:1 -
Incumbent. Economy good. Social media mastered. Buckets of money, none wasted on primary.glw said:
All the crooked, immoral, and in some cases criminal things that Trump and the GOP will do to win the election. It will not be a fair fight.contrarian said:In Trump folk on here seem very sure of a candidate who doesn;t appear to be doing that well in the polls I see posted. Either equal or behind.
What am I missing?0 -
It's in such a position because it's almost still in the EU.HYUFD said:
Northern Ireland is in a great position post Brexit, in a customs union and most of the single market and with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland so in a better position economically than GB in terms of trade with the EU but also still technically part of the UK with a UK government committed to minimise checks on goods going from GB to NI and vice versa, so also in a better position economically than the Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB.FF43 said:
Will the UK government impose two way checks on goods as they have agreed in the protocol so goods entering into NI can freely flow in and out of the Republic? This will impose very significant costs on NI businesses that trade with the rUK, to the extent of bankrupting quite a few of them on their current business model. In that case will business look to EU trade, which is frictionless and freeflow? Given all that do you accept my option 1 of a NI becoming part of the Irish sphere the likely one? Furthermore, that there is no prospect at all of the status quo holding?HYUFD said:
The Irish border will remain exactly as it was before Brexit as per the GFAFF43 said:
I suspect there isn't a huge groundswell of opinion in NI for a united Ireland, but when the status quo is apparently not an option, you have to choose one of the alternatives. The alternatives don't look attractive from a NI perspective, hence the absolute rejection across the board for Johnson's shabby protocol deal.AlastairMeeks said:
So what will happen?
1. The UK actually implements the sea border it agreed with the EU. As the land border will be open and the sea border imposes major costs on what passes for a NI economy, the orientation of that economy will probably switch to the south from the east. Add in the facts that most NI people have Irish/EU passports and EU legislation will have greater immediate impact on them than UK equivalents, we are likely to see NI move into an Irish sphere whether or not it formally separates from the UK.
2. The UK doesn't implement the sea border it agreed with the EU. The hard border switches to the land border. Most thinking people realise this would be a disaster and there are likely IMO to be very urgent calls to get NI formally into the Republic.
Either way, we are likely to greater integration of NI into Ireland, revealing unionists' massive strategic error in undermining the status quo that was their best friend.
Why would they want to change that?
It is coming to something when Conservatives are defending the government by deploying the phrase that NI is still "technically" part of the UK.1 -
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html0 -
1
-
If the UK government meets its commitments, NI won't be in a better position than Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB. That's the whole point of the protocol.HYUFD said:
Northern Ireland is in a great position post Brexit, in a customs union and most of the single market and with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland so in a better position economically than GB in terms of trade with the EU but also still technically part of the UK with a UK government committed to minimise checks on goods going from GB to NI and vice versa, so also in a better position economically than the Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB.FF43 said:
Will the UK government impose two way checks on goods as they have agreed in the protocol so goods entering into NI can freely flow in and out of the Republic? This will impose very significant costs on NI businesses that trade with the rUK, to the extent of bankrupting quite a few of them on their current business model. In that case will business look to EU trade, which is frictionless and freeflow? Given all that do you accept my option 1 of a NI becoming part of the Irish sphere the likely one? Furthermore, that there is no prospect at all of the status quo holding?HYUFD said:
The Irish border will remain exactly as it was before Brexit as per the GFA
Why would they want to change that?
I accept NI may eventually be better off as part of a United Ireland. Its semi-detached arrangement with the UK isn't doing it much good. But somehow I think that question should be taken from first principles, rather than as a consequence of a hole-in-the-corner deal concocted by Johnson for his political advantage.0 -
That's a little surprising about alliance.AlastairMeeks said:
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html
If it was MLAs it would be other way round I'd assume.0 -
He was saying previously don't knows tended to be Alliance voters, after the surge for the political wing of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland the poll showed clearly Alliance voters now swinging against a United IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html0 -
Blair - Labour risks being "too strong to disappear but too weak to win"0
-
Yes, and you are citing a 70% figure that strips out don't knows. So in other words you are repeatedly comparing apples and oranges.HYUFD said:
He was saying previously don't knows tended to be Alliance voters, after the surge for the political wing of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland the poll showed clearly Alliance voters now swinging against a United IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html0 -
75 years on and it appears Germany hasn't changed much, there are still Nazi's running around.0 -
It will be as it remains a part of the UK and a member of the WTO as part of the UK, if we go to WTO+ terms from December.FF43 said:
If the UK government meets its commitments, NI won't be in a better position than Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB. That's the whole point of the protocol.HYUFD said:
Northern Ireland is in a great position post Brexit, in a customs union and most of the single market and with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland so in a better position economically than GB in terms of trade with the EU but also still technically part of the UK with a UK government committed to minimise checks on goods going from GB to NI and vice versa, so also in a better position economically than the Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB.FF43 said:
Will the UK government impose two way checks on goods as they have agreed in the protocol so goods entering into NI can freely flow in and out of the Republic? This will impose very significant costs on NI businesses that trade with the rUK, to the extent of bankrupting quite a few of them on their current business model. In that case will business look to EU trade, which is frictionless and freeflow? Given all that do you accept my option 1 of a NI becoming part of the Irish sphere the likely one? Furthermore, that there is no prospect at all of the status quo holding?HYUFD said:
The Irish border will remain exactly as it was before Brexit as per the GFA
Why would they want to change that?
I accept NI may eventually be better off as part of a United Ireland. Its semi-detached arrangement with the UK isn't doing it much good. But somehow I think that question should be taken from first principles, rather than as a consequence of a hole-in-the-corner deal concocted by Johnson for his political advantage.
I know you are a diehard Remainer ideologically opposed to Brexit no matter what the cost and who favours a United Ireland to undermine Brexit but facts are facts0 -
All of what you say is true. In particular, wanting Brexit, wanting no distinction between NI and the rest of the UK, and wanting peace in NI were always incompatible. This has been stated publicly for years. However, the consequences might turn out well for the most extreme unionists, who aren't that bothered about whether there is peace or not.FF43 said:
I suspect there isn't a huge groundswell of opinion in NI for a united Ireland, but when the status quo is apparently not an option, you have to choose one of the alternatives. The alternatives don't look attractive from a NI perspective, hence the absolute rejection across the board for Johnson's shabby protocol deal.AlastairMeeks said:
So what will happen?
1. The UK actually implements the sea border it agreed with the EU. As the land border will be open and the sea border imposes major costs on what passes for a NI economy, the orientation of that economy will probably switch to the south from the east. Add in the facts that most NI people have Irish/EU passports and EU legislation will have greater immediate impact on them than UK equivalents, we are likely to see NI move into an Irish sphere whether or not it formally separates from the UK.
2. The UK doesn't implement the sea border it agreed with the EU. The hard border switches to the land border. Most thinking people realise this would be a disaster and there are likely IMO to be very urgent calls to get NI formally into the Republic.
Either way, we are likely to greater integration of NI into Ireland, revealing unionists' massive strategic error in undermining the status quo that was their best friend.
Look at the pre-2016 trend in NI. That's before the EU referendum, and before the collapse of Stormont. NI was moving further away from its violent past, and the Irish/British (or Catholic/Protestant, if you prefer) divide was getting less important. The grandchildren of today's politicians, when they grew up, would have no interest in defining themselves in these terms.
How would those grandchildren vote in a border poll? They wouldn't feel strongly about it, but they'd marginally prefer to be part of the country they share most with culturally, whether Protestant or Catholic. Namely Ireland.
The way to prevent that is to inflame tensions, create the threat (or the reality) of a hard border and the inevitable violence that would follow, have people demanding a border poll decades ahead of time, and reinforce the sectarian divide. Under this scenario, the grandchildren of today's politicians will still define themselves in sectarian terms, and the status quo will be preserved.
I'm not so cynical to believe that was behind the DUP's thinking, en masse, but nor am I so naïve to think that this hasn't occurred to any of them.0 -
No, it is a clear swing of Alliance voters against a United Ireland, many of whom were previously don't knows, after the rise in the Sinn Fein vote in the Republic of Ireland general election.AlastairMeeks said:
Yes, and you are citing a 70% figure that strips out don't knows. So in other words you are repeatedly comparing apples and oranges.HYUFD said:
He was saying previously don't knows tended to be Alliance voters, after the surge for the political wing of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland the poll showed clearly Alliance voters now swinging against a United IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html
They clearly are less sympathetic to the political wing of the IRA than some on here0 -
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.1 -
You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You're using an after don't knows figure to claim that don't knows have swung against a united Ireland. That is a nonsensical argument.HYUFD said:
No, it is a clear swing of Alliance voters against a United Ireland, many of whom were previously don't knows, after the rise in the Sinn Fein vote in the Republic of Ireland general election.AlastairMeeks said:
Yes, and you are citing a 70% figure that strips out don't knows. So in other words you are repeatedly comparing apples and oranges.HYUFD said:
He was saying previously don't knows tended to be Alliance voters, after the surge for the political wing of the IRA in the Republic of Ireland the poll showed clearly Alliance voters now swinging against a United IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
After don't knows have been taken out. Which was precisely the point of the article I originally linked to.HYUFD said:
It has 70% of Alliance voters oppose a United Ireland, as do 99% of DUP and UUP voterseek said:
It hasn't got 70% opposing a United Ireland - that figure comes from your own imagination...HYUFD said:
If you read the article he says Alliance voters tend to be more undecided but the latest poll has 70% of them opposing a United Ireland after the Sinn Fein rise in the Republiceek said:
Don't let reality get in the way of HYUFD ...AlastairMeeks said:a
Try actually reading the article.HYUFD said:
Not really as even the author makes clearAlastairMeeks said:
Once, just once, could you try reading what was linked to rather than going into auto-HYUFD? There's a very specific and interesting point being made, one which requires careful thought rather than leading to easy conclusions (and which, incidentally, throws into question your polloid).HYUFD said:
You can when 70% of Alliance voters in that poll oppose a United Ireland and they are the key swing voters in Northern IrelandAlastairMeeks said:
https://twitter.com/peterdonaghy/status/1230468621467557888?s=20
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/just-29-in-northern-ireland-would-vote-for-unity-major-study-reveals-38966196.html
They clearly are less sympathetic to the political wing of the IRA than some on here0 -
It does though remind us that countries are unwise to make it expensive or difficult for tourists to visit them, because they may choose to go elsewhere. Is the EU listening?eek said:
Turkey have removed visas for all EU countries to increase Tourism - the UK isn't anything special...HYUFD said:1 -
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:0 -
No I wouldn’t want to do that. I’ll just comment where I think it’s necessary to point it out.AlastairMeeks said:
You'll have to give me the @isam-approved list of newspapers to quote from. I'm not feeling particularly guilty about citing an article from Italy's second biggest-selling newspaper. It's not exactly the New European or Breitbart.isam said:
Blimey Alastair, you’d shoot anyone down in flames if they argued and quoted sources the way you have recentlyAlastairMeeks said:La Repubblica currently has an article online about the UK's immigration changes under the headline:
"Il muro della Brexit per gli europei e la vergogna a punti"
One of our resident Italian speakers can do a better job than me, but I think the gist is "The wall of Brexit for Europeans and the shame in points".
So Britain is making new friends everywhere with its drawbridge rhetoric.
‘Born as a radical leftist newspaper it has since moderated to a milder centre-left political stance’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Repubblica
The Italian Guardian doesn’t like immigration control1 -
We have far right groups here too. In neither country are they running anything.TheGreenMachine said:
75 years on and it appears Germany hasn't changed much, there are still Nazi's running around.0 -
If Dems lose congress thanks to Sanders, then Trump will be unbound.Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.1 -
SOP? Nobody ever admits they're going to lose this early in the game.contrarian said:In Trump folk on here seem very sure of a candidate who doesn;t appear to be doing that well in the polls I see posted. Either equal or behind.
What am I missing?0 -
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:2 -
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:0 -
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £50 -
I do not follow (or care about) US politics, but Mr Bloomberg comes across to me as a nasty piece of work.rottenborough said:
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:
From what I can gather from the comments on here, the Dems need Sanders to retire or shuffle off this mortal coil so they can lose their fixation with him and select an electable candidate.
Seriously - who is going to vote for a man so old he looks like will die in office?0 -
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
1 -
Trump had both Houses of Congress at the start in 2016, he only lost the House in 2018 and still has the Senate.rottenborough said:
If Dems lose congress thanks to Sanders, then Trump will be unbound.Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.1 -
Who is not even a Democrat...Beibheirli_C said:
I do not follow (or care about) US politics, but Mr Bloomberg comes across to me as a nasty piece of work.rottenborough said:
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:
From what I can gather from the comments on here, the Dems need Sanders to retire or shuffle off this mortal coil so they can lose their fixation with him and select an electable candidate.
Seriously - who is going to vote for a man so old he looks like will die in office?0 -
In a polling milestone, Trump gets first ever positive approval rating with Gallup:
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/12304877260231147531 -
Ha, actually heard the Leeds news from my mum (her bus had to go a different route).
Apparently she walked past the site in question earlier, but claims the device is nothing to do with her.0 -
Crazy.rottenborough said:
Who is not even a Democrat...Beibheirli_C said:
I do not follow (or care about) US politics, but Mr Bloomberg comes across to me as a nasty piece of work.rottenborough said:
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:
From what I can gather from the comments on here, the Dems need Sanders to retire or shuffle off this mortal coil so they can lose their fixation with him and select an electable candidate.
Seriously - who is going to vote for a man so old he looks like will die in office?0 -
If Trump gets re-elected I would expect the Democrats to lose 10 seats in the House but still keep control of it.rottenborough said:
If Dems lose congress thanks to Sanders, then Trump will be unbound.Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.
In the Senate I expect no net change if Trump wins, Democrats should win the Arizona and Colorado Senate seats no matter what, but lose Alabama and Michigan.0 -
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched
0 -
He needed one of Zuckerberg's armpit driers.Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched0 -
Maybe, but perhaps a nasty piece of work is what it takes to beat Trump.Beibheirli_C said:
I do not follow (or care about) US politics, but Mr Bloomberg comes across to me as a nasty piece of work.rottenborough said:
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:
From what I can gather from the comments on here, the Dems need Sanders to retire or shuffle off this mortal coil so they can lose their fixation with him and select an electable candidate.
Seriously - who is going to vote for a man so old he looks like will die in office?0 -
The Republican primary in Alabama is interesting. One of the polling favourites at the moment makes Roy Moore look like a well balanced individual with zero problems.speedy2 said:
If Trump gets re-elected I would expect the Democrats to lose 10 seats in the House but still keep control of it.rottenborough said:
If Dems lose congress thanks to Sanders, then Trump will be unbound.Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.
In the Senate I expect no net change if Trump wins, Democrats should win the Arizona and Colorado Senate seats no matter what, but lose Alabama and Michigan.0 -
speedy2 said:
In a polling milestone, Trump gets first ever positive approval rating with Gallup:
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1230487726023114753
That's an important chart.0 -
BETTING TIP
Stacey Abrams is seriously underestimated to be the Democratic VP nomination. Several reasons:
1. All six remaining candidates are white, and the biggest disadvantage the Dems faced in 2016 was collapsed black turnout. A black candidate would help them all a lot.
2. Warren and Klobuchar now seem to not have a clear path to getting the presidential nomination, meaning a man at the top of the ticket who will need to balance with a woman.
3. Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg will all need to reach out to the left if Sanders is defeated, and choose someone seen as being on the left of the party. Sanders is a doctrinaire left winger who recently had a heart attack, so will be thinking about a successor from the left.
4. Abrams is an expert in voter turnout, which will be a critical skill for 2020.
5. Georgia is becoming a swing state and the GOP cannot win without it. The population is rapidly growing due to the suburbs of Atlanta, and the suburbanites are disproportionately African American, so could have large upside for the Dems.
6. Georgia also has two Senate seats up for grabs, which could give a new Democratic president the majority if Abrams pulls them over the line.0 -
It was his day off.brokenwheel said:
He needed one of Zuckerberg's armpit driers.Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched0 -
Love to see this broken down by state. It doesn't matter if Trump is doing gang busters in Missisissisisisisipi if he's sinking in Wisconsin.
Likewise it doesn't matter if he's doing (relatively) badly in Louisiana if he's killing it in Michigan.0 -
You've clearly looked at this in more detail than I have, so I think this is a good point for me to say that I'm wrongOldKingCole said:
IIRC Labour won all the seats from the LD's that it might have been reasonable expected to.Selebian said:
True, but Labour might have attracted more of the collapsing LD vote with a better leader (or same leader performing better). Who knows? Rise of SNP was probably almost unstoppable at that point.OldKingCole said:
It's often forgotten that the 2015 election wasn't a conventional Labour vs Tory fight. That ended up more or less even, but the Tories lost more seats to Labour than they won from them. The Tories won their majority by taking seats from their Coalition partners, and Labour lost heavily to the SNP.. It was the collapse of LD's and the rise of the SNP which ushered in the period of disastrous politics which we are now experiencing.Selebian said:
Both took the job too early and tried/were persuaded to be someone they were not. They both looked faintly ridiculous doing so and both looked much more convincing after giving up the leadership and feeling free to be themselves.Quincel said:
I agree, he's one of those politicians who seems to have learned lessons from doing poorly at a big job and may well be better second time around. Hague was the same, a strong cabinet minister after an iffy LoTO.OldKingCole said:
He has a very thoughtful and informed podcast; Reasons to be Cheerful. With a chap called Geoff Lloyd.rottenborough said:
Hague was never in a position to beat Blair in 2001 (no one was), but Miliband, had he kicked out some of his advisors/speech writers and/or had the balls not to care what people thought of him... Who knows? And what a different place we might be in now if he'd won! For better or worse, depending on your point of view, but we might have been arguing about quite different things for the past three and a half years!
Outright Labour majority probably a stretch, so we might have got to experience chaos with Ed Miliband (and some kind of SNP involvement).
We were doomed to the present reality from the press conference in the rose garden, or from the trebling of tuition fees, at least.0 -
Elizabeth Warren has just overtaken Hillary Clinton on Betfair...0
-
Norman Tebbit looked like he had died in office a couple of terms back.Beibheirli_C said:
I do not follow (or care about) US politics, but Mr Bloomberg comes across to me as a nasty piece of work.rottenborough said:
Well, Bloomberg didn't look like a winner last night.Charles said:
I suspect that Sanders as President would be Bloomberg’s worst outcomeAlastairMeeks said:
I agree. It also looks lacking in thought, since his attack on Bernie Sanders earlier in the week was based around Bernie Sanders' contingent support for other hypothetical nominees. He looks hypocritical.HYUFD said:
The attacks on Sanders though are interesting, especially his statement that a Sanders nomination guarantees Trump's re electionAlastairMeeks said:
We didn't need him to confirm that he was scorched in the debate.HYUFD said:
From what I can gather from the comments on here, the Dems need Sanders to retire or shuffle off this mortal coil so they can lose their fixation with him and select an electable candidate.
Seriously - who is going to vote for a man so old he looks like will die in office?
(Not for the want of the IRA trying.)0 -
BTW: News for folk who have recently joined the Labour Party (aka "Entryists"). Apparently, if you have so much as uttered anything nice about another party in the 2 years prior to applying to join, this is grounds for having your application rejected.
But don't worry, by the time this process is sorted out, you'll already have voted in the leadership election.
This implies that if a Tory MP stood up to cross the floor of the House, we'd tell him to piss off and sit back down.1 -
“They were the transsexuals transsexual...”Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched
0 -
Same as hereTheGreenMachine said:
75 years on and it appears Germany hasn't changed much, there are still Nazi's running around.0 -
Is that a thing? Wow!brokenwheel said:
He needed one of Zuckerberg's armpit driers.Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched0 -
What are the chances this ‘terrorist’ was also a drug abuser like almost all the Islamic ones?logical_song said:
We have far right groups here too. In neither country are they running anything.TheGreenMachine said:
75 years on and it appears Germany hasn't changed much, there are still Nazi's running around.0 -
The Dem candidates' primary game plan for sure.Kevin_McCandless said:
SOP? Nobody ever admits they're going to lose this early in the game.contrarian said:In Trump folk on here seem very sure of a candidate who doesn;t appear to be doing that well in the polls I see posted. Either equal or behind.
What am I missing?0 -
"Mr Blair's case is that politics is in a period of unprecedented change, driven in large part by rapidly changing technology. The scale of upheaval and disruption with AI, genetic engineering, driverless cars and so on - is re-shaping society and politics."HYUFD said:Blair says he wonders if Labour leadership candidates have sufficient hunger for power and says while a more moderate leader would help Labour must also adapt to technological change and redefine radicalism.
He also says the party just not get into a culture war on trans rights
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51560294
Blair channelling his inner Dominic Cummings?0 -
How many immigration points is that skill?SandyRentool said:
It was his day off.brokenwheel said:
He needed one of Zuckerberg's armpit driers.Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched0 -
That remark is unworthy of me!MaxPB said:
Do you ever get tired of furiously masturbating over your love of the EU?FF43 said:
Given the alternative to the ECJ is unilateral decision on adequacy by EU committee - an adequacy assessment that they can remove at whim - I would suggest ECJ oversight brings legal objectivity and protection for UK interests that at the end of the day are the weaker party.HYUFD said:
The Norwegian parliament made a similar point about legal protections in their report about their relationship with the EU. The report is an interesting read.
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/eu/nou2012_2_chapter27.pdf0 -
What are the Democrats playing at? Has Trump sent them barmy? At this rate, they'll nominate Methuselah as a write-in candidate.0
-
A very misunderstood condition but probably "advanced" for its time. Given Richard O'Brien's more recent comments on gender, including his own, the RHPS is not exactly a textbook on the condition.isam said:
“They were the transsexuals transsexual...”Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1230460383690973185
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched
0 -
New Betfair market up -
"Will any Dem get a majority of pledged delegates?" Yes or No.
50/50.0 -
It makes sense, I thought Clinton has been terrible in the debates so far. Completely invisible. And not even filing for a single state. I'm starting to think she isn't as likely to win as a candidate on 10%+ of the vote and a skilled debater.Alistair said:
Damn it, I laid off too earlyQuincel said:Elizabeth Warren has just overtaken Hillary Clinton on Betfair...
0 -
We are seeing a lot of tweets from people, whose family arrived in the uk from Asian countries, saying they wouldn’t have be allowed in under the govts new immigration policy, and pointing out that neither would Priti Patel’s
Doesn’t the change in policy only affect the EU?0 -
As the tale of Bloomberg has shown, entering into the Democratic primary race is a drag on your chances of winning it.Quincel said:
It makes sense, I thought Clinton has been terrible in the debates so far. Completely invisible. And not even filing for a single state. I'm starting to think she isn't as likely to win as a candidate on 10%+ of the vote and a skilled debater.Alistair said:
Damn it, I laid off too earlyQuincel said:Elizabeth Warren has just overtaken Hillary Clinton on Betfair...
1 -
Yes,Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.
Also, it's very important that it is Presidential Trump who deals with the fallout from his economic policies.0 -
Well, isn't it the case that successive governments have done nothing to reduce non-EU immigration? So presumably the present rules for non-EU people are laxer than the new ones.isam said:We are seeing a lot of tweets from people, whose family arrived in the uk from Asian countries, saying they wouldn’t have be allowed in under the govts new immigration policy, and pointing out that neither would Priti Patel’s
Doesn’t the change in policy only affect the EU?0 -
If Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 minus GA then he still gets enough EC votes. Anyway as his winning margin in 2016 was 5-points, if the Dem candidate is getting 5% swings in marginal states then the result will a easy win for the Dems.Gabs3 said:BETTING TIP
5. Georgia is becoming a swing state and the GOP cannot win without it. The population is rapidly growing due to the suburbs of Atlanta, and the suburbanites are disproportionately African American, so could have large upside for the Dems.
I can see GA becoming an important swing state in the future, but requires at least a couple of electoral cycles.
The swing state that really matters is FLA. Is there a popular back female from Florida who could be on the VP ticket?
0 -
That would make sense, yes. I thought the change was just for EU citizens but you must be right.rpjs said:
Well, isn't it the case that successive governments have done nothing to reduce non-EU immigration? So presumably the present rules for non-EU people are laxer than the new ones.isam said:We are seeing a lot of tweets from people, whose family arrived in the uk from Asian countries, saying they wouldn’t have be allowed in under the govts new immigration policy, and pointing out that neither would Priti Patel’s
Doesn’t the change in policy only affect the EU?0 -
I don't get that at all. You don't presumably think he will make the best job of it, so what's the point? So people will point at him and laugh? Anyone sensible already does. Or so he will feel jolly small? He won't.rcs1000 said:
Yes,Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.
Also, it's very important that it is Presidential Trump who deals with the fallout from his economic policies.0 -
FWIW I am agnostic on a United Ireland. I think the rest of the UK has an obligation to support the Northern Ireland people in whatever decision they make. Johnson is certainly not doing that.HYUFD said:
It will be as it remains a part of the UK and a member of the WTO as part of the UK, if we go to WTO+ terms from December.FF43 said:
If the UK government meets its commitments, NI won't be in a better position than Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB. That's the whole point of the protocol.HYUFD said:
Northern Ireland is in a great position post Brexit, in a customs union and most of the single market and with no hard border with the Republic of Ireland so in a better position economically than GB in terms of trade with the EU but also still technically part of the UK with a UK government committed to minimise checks on goods going from GB to NI and vice versa, so also in a better position economically than the Republic of Ireland and EU in terms of trade with GB.FF43 said:
Will the UK government impose two way checks on goods as they have agreed in the protocol so goods entering into NI can freely flow in and out of the Republic? This will impose very significant costs on NI businesses that trade with the rUK, to the extent of bankrupting quite a few of them on their current business model. In that case will business look to EU trade, which is frictionless and freeflow? Given all that do you accept my option 1 of a NI becoming part of the Irish sphere the likely one? Furthermore, that there is no prospect at all of the status quo holding?HYUFD said:
The Irish border will remain exactly as it was before Brexit as per the GFA
Why would they want to change that?
I accept NI may eventually be better off as part of a United Ireland. Its semi-detached arrangement with the UK isn't doing it much good. But somehow I think that question should be taken from first principles, rather than as a consequence of a hole-in-the-corner deal concocted by Johnson for his political advantage.
I know you are a diehard Remainer ideologically opposed to Brexit no matter what the cost and who favours a United Ireland to undermine Brexit but facts are facts
I would also quibble about being a diehard Remainer ideologically opposed to Brexit. At what point does opposition to something because it is demonstrably crap become ideological opposition? In any case, Brexit is interesting precisely because it is crap.0 -
I thought they were making it easier for non-EU migrants by lowering the salary threshold? And not giving EU nationals first dibs on all of the jobs.rpjs said:
Well, isn't it the case that successive governments have done nothing to reduce non-EU immigration? So presumably the present rules for non-EU people are laxer than the new ones.isam said:We are seeing a lot of tweets from people, whose family arrived in the uk from Asian countries, saying they wouldn’t have be allowed in under the govts new immigration policy, and pointing out that neither would Priti Patel’s
Doesn’t the change in policy only affect the EU?0 -
If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.eristdoof said:
If Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 minus GA then he still gets enough EC votes. Anyway as his winning margin in 2016 was 5-points, if the Dem candidate is getting 5% swings in marginal states then the result will a easy win for the Dems.Gabs3 said:BETTING TIP
5. Georgia is becoming a swing state and the GOP cannot win without it. The population is rapidly growing due to the suburbs of Atlanta, and the suburbanites are disproportionately African American, so could have large upside for the Dems.
I can see GA becoming an important swing state in the future, but requires at least a couple of electoral cycles.
The swing state that really matters is FLA. Is there a popular back female from Florida who could be on the VP ticket?
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
What has realistic centrism (a term which begs the question of centrism's realism) to do with the price of fish? Sanders' support is not high; he is winning because he has so many opponents.Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.0 -
Why? Trump is not up for reelection, has a cult like base who will support and love him through anything, and a level of narcissism that he doesn't care about people getting hurt.rcs1000 said:
Yes,Fishing said:
I agree, but the Dems are probably going to lose anyway and at least with Sanders they will lose with a pure ideology. As the Presidency is winner-takes-all, unlike our Parliamentary system, it doesn't matter if they lose by one seat in the electoral college or 300. Unlike in Britain, where a hung Parliament is a very different proposition from a government with a majority of 100. (Though in practice, it's more complicated than that, given the coattails effect that Presidential elections have on Congressional ones in the same year).rottenborough said:
He will lose very badly.TGOHF666 said:
Sanders is garbage - Corbyns old man with more swivelly eyes.
In fact, a huge defeat under Sanders in November might have a silver lining for the leadership if it results in more realistic centrism in the party.
Also, it's very important that it is Presidential Trump who deals with the fallout from his economic policies.0 -
A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/1 -
Very off topic: First sighting of a Redwing in our garden this morning. At lunchtime there was a Mistle Thrush in the paddock behind us, but it didn't venture over our garden wall.
Also, the recent deluges appear to have chased away the local rat population.0 -
I was raised as a NI Unionist because of where I grew up. The GFA made the border ambiguous and Irish identity a bit "fuzzier" - less of an item for a Unionist to worry about whilst remaining a Unionist.FF43 said:
FWIW I am agnostic on a United Ireland. I think the rest of the UK has an obligation to support the Northern Ireland people in whatever decision they make. Johnson is certainly not doing that.HYUFD said:
It will be as it remains a part of the UK and a member of the WTO as part of the UK, if we go to WTO+ terms from December.
I know you are a diehard Remainer ideologically opposed to Brexit no matter what the cost and who favours a United Ireland to undermine Brexit but facts are facts
I would also quibble about being a diehard Remainer ideologically opposed to Brexit. At what point does opposition to something because it is demonstrably crap become ideological opposition? In any case, Brexit is interesting precisely because it is crap.
But Brexit has changed my mind. The "Little Britain" Leaverism and, more recently, the disdain shown for NI by senior Conservative politicans (including Boris) has convinced me that a United Ireland may be better.0 -
They’re making it easier for skilled non-EU migrants, and more difficult for unskilled EU migrants.SandyRentool said:
I thought they were making it easier for non-EU migrants by lowering the salary threshold? And not giving EU nationals first dibs on all of the jobs.rpjs said:
Well, isn't it the case that successive governments have done nothing to reduce non-EU immigration? So presumably the present rules for non-EU people are laxer than the new ones.isam said:We are seeing a lot of tweets from people, whose family arrived in the uk from Asian countries, saying they wouldn’t have be allowed in under the govts new immigration policy, and pointing out that neither would Priti Patel’s
Doesn’t the change in policy only affect the EU?0 -
Well, you can kinda work that out from the states. If you look at the map and compare mid-term to now, you can see while he's underwater in Democratic bastions he's gaining in most of the places he needs to. The upper Midwest being a crucial outlier.Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
You do realise that there is a difference between a couple of racist extremists shooting 11 people and a government whose policy is to kill an entire religion and race and getting close to succeeding.TheGreenMachine said:
75 years on and it appears Germany hasn't changed much, there are still Nazi's running around.
3 -
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
Offtopic, but could Coronavirus be what was needed to kick-start international videoconferences?
Internet guardian organisation ICANN is doing just that next month. They’ve cancelled their physical conference in Mexico and are doing the whole thing remotely.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200219_icann_to_hold_first_ever_remote_public_meeting/0 -
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
I don't think Florida is a swing state in 2020. Just look at the 2018 Governor and Senate readers.eristdoof said:
If Trump wins all the states he won in 2016 minus GA then he still gets enough EC votes. Anyway as his winning margin in 2016 was 5-points, if the Dem candidate is getting 5% swings in marginal states then the result will a easy win for the Dems.Gabs3 said:BETTING TIP
5. Georgia is becoming a swing state and the GOP cannot win without it. The population is rapidly growing due to the suburbs of Atlanta, and the suburbanites are disproportionately African American, so could have large upside for the Dems.
I can see GA becoming an important swing state in the future, but requires at least a couple of electoral cycles.
The swing state that really matters is FLA. Is there a popular back female from Florida who could be on the VP ticket?1 -
Looks like the ex-felon refranchisement in FL will stand, at least until November, so that would help the Dems a bit as ex-felons tend to lean Democratic by 2:1.eristdoof said:
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.
ETA: Over 10% of Florida's population was disenfranchised for being ex-felons!0 -
The Florida Dems are pinning their hopes on a state constitutional change passed in 2018, that gives a number of felons the vote after their sentence has been served.kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
Do you have a link for that as the last polling I had seen said ex felons were Republican leaning.rpjs said:
Looks like the ex-felon refranchisement in FL will stand, at least until November, so that would help the Dems a bit as ex-felons tend to lean Democratic by 2:1eristdoof said:
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Although worth noting that Trump is not particularly unpopular in Virginia, so could that go the other way?rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/1 -
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Feb20.html#item-3 - possibly it's the split for Florida, rather than nationally.Alistair said:
Do you have a link for that as the last polling I had seen said ex felons were Republican leaning.rpjs said:
Looks like the ex-felon refranchisement in FL will stand, at least until November, so that would help the Dems a bit as ex-felons tend to lean Democratic by 2:1eristdoof said:
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.0 -
Given Blair, it was probably lavender scented water sprayed on with a perfume-woofer through the kind of metal template Costa use to standardise barista ability by a dedicated assistant to give the precise shape of armpit moist-patch demanded by Ali Campbell.Beibheirli_C said:
Surely the Joker would be more apt?isam said:
He always reminds me of him when he grinsBeibheirli_C said:
Tony Blair is Tim Curry?isam said:
Quite something from the man who played Frank N Furterrottenborough said:
You are Richard O'Brien and I claim my £5
I always called Blair "Mr Sweaty". When he whipped his jacket off he always seemed to be drenched
Or am I being too cynical?
1 -
No chance.rcs1000 said:rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Although worth noting that Trump is not particularly unpopular in Virginia, so could that go the other way?rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
I don't think Iowa will be that easy. Neither will Wisconsin. Pennsylvania will be easier.rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
But ex-felons vote at very low rates. Dems might get a 0.5 pt advantage over it.rpjs said:
Looks like the ex-felon refranchisement in FL will stand, at least until November, so that would help the Dems a bit as ex-felons tend to lean Democratic by 2:1.eristdoof said:
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.
ETA: Over 10% of Florida's population was disenfranchised for being ex-felons!0 -
VA is pretty solidly a blue state these days due to the migration of liberal voters to the state for work around DC. NC is a good target for the Democrats too for similar reasons: increasing high-tech employment in places like the Research Triangle is changing the state's demographics to the Democrats' favour.Gabs3 said:
No chance.rcs1000 said:rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Although worth noting that Trump is not particularly unpopular in Virginia, so could that go the other way?rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
Also Charlotte is massively booming, bringing in a lot of people from Chicago and New York.rpjs said:
VA is pretty solidly a blue state these days due to the migration of liberal voters to the state for work around DC. NC is a good target for the Democrats too for similar reasons: increasing high-tech employment in places like the Research Triangle is changing the state's demographics to the Democrats' favour.Gabs3 said:
No chance.rcs1000 said:rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
Although worth noting that Trump is not particularly unpopular in Virginia, so could that go the other way?rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
I agree IA may be difficult, but WI is nailed on for the Democrats I think.Gabs3 said:
I don't think Iowa will be that easy. Neither will Wisconsin. Pennsylvania will be easier.rpjs said:
Interesting, Trump appears to be far enough underwater in IA (6 EVs), MI (16), and WI (10) that the Dems should have little problems flipping them. That would put Trump on 273 so the Dems would only need to flip one more of the states where Trump is marginally underwater: AZ (11 EVs), FL (29), NC (15), OH (18), or PA (20).Alistair said:A very handy website, per state trump approval ratings. I think the most important point is how is approval rating is compared to his vote percentage in 2016 (unfortunately not captured on the site).
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/0 -
Which could be enough in such a razor-edge state.Gabs3 said:
But ex-felons vote at very low rates. Dems might get a 0.5 pt advantage over it.rpjs said:
Looks like the ex-felon refranchisement in FL will stand, at least until November, so that would help the Dems a bit as ex-felons tend to lean Democratic by 2:1.eristdoof said:
A Dem Landslide would not be able to overturn a 1.2point deficit?kinabalu said:
Even my superforecasted Dem landslide does not involve them taking Florida.Gabs3 said:If we imagine the Democrats get a big boost from black turnout, the swing states it would most affect would be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. With Georgia being more than the other two. So the Dems winning Georgia and losing Wisconsin is very possible.
I think Florida is very hard to swing. It is a very elderly state and a very Cuban state that will make a socialist on the ticket very dangerous.
ETA: Over 10% of Florida's population was disenfranchised for being ex-felons!0 -
It wont last. Too useful to have whispered asides in the cloak room.Sandpit said:Offtopic, but could Coronavirus be what was needed to kick-start international videoconferences?
Internet guardian organisation ICANN is doing just that next month. They’ve cancelled their physical conference in Mexico and are doing the whole thing remotely.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200219_icann_to_hold_first_ever_remote_public_meeting/0
This discussion has been closed.