I seem to recall they have a history of shifting violently as the election date approaches. Is there some late 'herding' going on here? If so, it will make a big difference to the Models. Ras were one of the few outfits pulling Biden's average lead down.
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
A reminder that buying on the Supremacy market at 57-65 is better - it's equivalent to Biden 297.5-301.5 (but with twice the stake per point, so £10 a point on the main ECV is the same as £5 a point on the supremacy).
I've no idea why SPIN have this market with a smaller effective spread and a slightly lower mid-point than the main one, but who are we to argue?
Just listening to Starmer & Co criticising Johnson for incompetence bungling, blah blah blah
You gave him another six months to do what he wants.
You abstained.
So if Labour had voted against it, would it have been voted down?
Oh wait, it wouldn’t.
No. And the Tories would have never shut up about it. Voting against it was what they wanted. Your majority you sort it out. Oh and Brexit and the economy while you're at it.
It's a both/and. There is a stupid woman in the Telegraph today complaining in her first paragraph that we should be sheltering the shit out of the elderly and let everybody else get on with it, and in her fourth how terrible it is that 80 somethings can't see their grandchildren. That's lethal-to-the-elderly pandemics for you. And pandemics is really what it is: Johnson is a bumbling arse but that is still less than 1% of the problem. In a Cnut vs the tide scenario there is no point in telling Cnut to up his game, or you'll replace him with SKS. It doesn't make any difference. British exceptionalism is wrong in both directions: we aren't even uniquely useless, we are just having a shit pandemic like every other country in the entire world. Including fcking Sweden.
You're having a moment. Put your BLM banner down and focus.
It is terrible that 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Either way, 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
There is a key difference or two that's being missed between those scenarios.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. As far as one can tell, forever, or at least until a magical vaccine rides to the rescue (which is always due in 6 months time).
Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. For around 6 months whilst everyone else has Covid, and then life can more or less return to normal. Meanwhile those not at risk get to live almost normal life, starting tomorrow.
There is no safe solution for our 80 year olds to see their grandkids right now, but that doesn't mean that risk segmentation isn't the answer.
And they used to say that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer.
Most Anglicans, though not all, still vote Tory but it seems Tory voters would rather asylum claims to the UK were not processed in the UK
I doubt if this poll means a thing. The people who think that like Australia the most realistic way of dealing with all asylum claims is a level playing field of an off shore intermediate refugee camp will answer 'Yes' to the question whether the camp is situated on Tristan da Cunha or Raasay, as long as it isn't situated in Wimborne, West Sussex or rural Cheshire.
It is, though harsh, not the least decent way of dealing with an insoluble problem in a world where at least a couple of billion people would have a legitimate claim, and that number happens to overlap with a similar number who could be eager economic migrants.
There are, like all the big problems facing us at the moment, no good ways of dealing with it, only bad and worse ones.
Tories, Anglicans and Labour voters are united mostly in wanting something reasonably humane which does not overwhelm already socially challenged parts of the UK.
Would people regard Christmas under the 'rule of six' as 'cancelled christmas' ? It's a genuine question.
Depends on the size of your family, we're a family of five, so Christmas won't be cancelled for us, but if you're a larger family, say 2 grandparents, 2 parents who had four kids, and those four kids have eight kids between them, then I'd say Christmas is cancelled for them.
My current plans for Xmas involve 13 people, aged from 6 months to 90 years old, from 6 households. A "Xmas meal for one" beckons, I think.
It's a both/and. There is a stupid woman in the Telegraph today complaining in her first paragraph that we should be sheltering the shit out of the elderly and let everybody else get on with it, and in her fourth how terrible it is that 80 somethings can't see their grandchildren. That's lethal-to-the-elderly pandemics for you. And pandemics is really what it is: Johnson is a bumbling arse but that is still less than 1% of the problem. In a Cnut vs the tide scenario there is no point in telling Cnut to up his game, or you'll replace him with SKS. It doesn't make any difference. British exceptionalism is wrong in both directions: we aren't even uniquely useless, we are just having a shit pandemic like every other country in the entire world. Including fcking Sweden.
You're having a moment. Put your BLM banner down and focus.
It is terrible that 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Either way, 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
There is a key difference or two that's being missed between those scenarios.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. As far as one can tell, forever, or at least until a magical vaccine rides to the rescue (which is always due in 6 months time).
Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. For around 6 months whilst everyone else has Covid, and then life can more or less return to normal. Meanwhile those not at risk get to live almost normal life, starting tomorrow.
There is no safe solution for our 80 year olds to see their grandkids right now, but that doesn't mean that risk segmentation isn't the answer.
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
Yep. It's the upside downside imbalance which generates the value. Supremacy is a 57 sell now against my buy at 28. I'm on at a big (for me) unit stake and normally I would be taking some profit with this sort of green movement. I'm quite wussy like that. But I am not doing so in this case. The price is too low to justify it. I would need to see 75 for a partial exit and at least 100 for a full one.
Boris - "we beat this before" - yes, because you had a full lockdown.
Lockdowns have minimal effect. They may spread deaths over a longer period. Whether that is beneficial could depend on whether cases of respiratory illness threaten to exceed NHS capacity, or a few other factors.
However, there are simpler and more effective measures to control that, including some distancing, more handwashing and vitamin D tablets.
Exhibit A: Sweden. Minimal restrictions on civil liberties. Deaths per million 10% lower than UK and they seem to be almost over whereas the UK is allegedly having a 2nd. peak
Exhibit B: Japan. Almost no restrictions. Deaths per million 98% lower than UK.
Sweden - no fat people and very expensive alcohol - your call.
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
A reminder that buying on the Supremacy market at 57-65 is better - it's equivalent to Biden 297.5-301.5 (but with twice the stake per point, so £10 a point on the main ECV is the same as £5 a point on the supremacy).
I've no idea why SPIN have this market with a smaller effective spread and a slightly lower mid-point than the main one, but who are we to argue?
Yes, I took the tip and maxed out on that earlier. Thank you Richard.
I recommend it to anyone who has not yet got their snout in the trough.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
But that was more likely to positive patients being sent back to care homes to the infect the rest, the rest who were the most vulnerable to this disease.
We wouldn't be stupid enough to do that again, would we? Well...
It's a both/and. There is a stupid woman in the Telegraph today complaining in her first paragraph that we should be sheltering the shit out of the elderly and let everybody else get on with it, and in her fourth how terrible it is that 80 somethings can't see their grandchildren. That's lethal-to-the-elderly pandemics for you. And pandemics is really what it is: Johnson is a bumbling arse but that is still less than 1% of the problem. In a Cnut vs the tide scenario there is no point in telling Cnut to up his game, or you'll replace him with SKS. It doesn't make any difference. British exceptionalism is wrong in both directions: we aren't even uniquely useless, we are just having a shit pandemic like every other country in the entire world. Including fcking Sweden.
You're having a moment. Put your BLM banner down and focus.
It is terrible that 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
Either way, 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren.
There is a key difference or two that's being missed between those scenarios.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. As far as one can tell, forever, or at least until a magical vaccine rides to the rescue (which is always due in 6 months time).
Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. For around 6 months whilst everyone else has Covid, and then life can more or less return to normal. Meanwhile those not at risk get to live almost normal life, starting tomorrow.
There is no safe solution for our 80 year olds to see their grandkids right now, but that doesn't mean that risk segmentation isn't the answer.
Apart from with risk segmentation when you have cut out all the vulnerable and those that can't isolate from them how many are really left. I suspect not that many. Certainly not a big enough proportion of the population to get near herd immunity nor to make the economy viable
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
I know, but as I've been saying since March, until we have a vaccine there's no good options, just bad ones.
A vaccine is not a good option either, given it will be unlicensed. The licensing procedure takes 6-10 years, the government want to get it out in 6 months,
We have a flu vaccine and 40,000 people a year still pass away from flu, in a bad year, apparently.
My mate in the Navy reckons we should get asylum seekers to man the HMS Prince of Wales because they can’t man it as is.
Following through on my idea to restart the press gang, apparently....
Anyone who makes it to the shores of Kent, is obviously a good seaman or lucky.
In either case they get hit over the head with a belaying pin and wake up to discover they've enlisted for 7 years in the RN. 7 years of continuous overseas tours....
If they do 7 years, they get citizenship. If they desert while at an overseas port... well good bye then...
So, food, accommodation, good pay. What's not to like?
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
Yep. It's the upside downside imbalance which generates the value. Supremacy is a 57 sell now against my buy at 28. I'm on at a big (for me) unit stake and normally I would be taking some profit with this sort of green movement. I'm quite wussy like that. But I am not doing so in this case. The price is too low to justify it. I would need to see 75 for a partial exit and at least 100 for a full one.
I plan to stay in until the finish but one common option in your situation is to trade out half and let the rest run.
This was posted earlier by @sirclive (originally from Florin Vio Sandu). For me this picture has a simpler stronger message that those of Boris and the Boffins earlier today, and it provides a rather different policy perspective.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
And that's the bit people are forgetting - I don't know anyone who has had Covid-19 who has fully recovered from it.
I am sorry but that is garbage -- Many people who get it don't even get a mild illness
As I'm sure eek does not expect everyone they encounter to provide a recent test result, it follows that they are talking about people who did display symptoms. And yes, it is very much the case that many people who showed symptoms are experiencing long-term after effects. I too know people who so affected. It is not garbage.
'...Sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler.'
It's true, and many of us of a different political persuasion would drink to that. What you do not need is a racist, a mysogenist, and a liar who actively encourages thugs and thuggery.
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
Yep. It's the upside downside imbalance which generates the value. Supremacy is a 57 sell now against my buy at 28. I'm on at a big (for me) unit stake and normally I would be taking some profit with this sort of green movement. I'm quite wussy like that. But I am not doing so in this case. The price is too low to justify it. I would need to see 75 for a partial exit and at least 100 for a full one.
270 and up is the market to rack up a big win (I'm on at +37).
Yes you lose a bit if narrow biden victory, but the upside is much higher for the leverage.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
It is fucking up the lives of people who don't know anyone who has even had it
I know, but as I've been saying since March, until we have a vaccine there's no good options, just bad ones.
A vaccine is not a good option either, given it will be unlicensed. The licensing procedure takes 6-10 years, the government want to get it out in 6 months,
We have a flu vaccine and 40,000 people a year still pass away from flu, in a bad year, apparently.
We don't have 'a' flu vaccine.
Indeed. A bad flu year is often due to the guesses that have to be made each year as to which flu strains to develop vaccines against being wrong.
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
And that's the bit people are forgetting - I don't know anyone who has had Covid-19 who has fully recovered from it.
I am sorry but that is garbage -- Many people who get it don't even get a mild illness
As I'm sure eek does not expect everyone they encounter to provide a recent test result, it follows that they are talking about people who did display symptoms. And yes, it is very much the case that many people who showed symptoms are experiencing long-term after effects. I too know people who so affected. It is not garbage.
Accepted that there are lingering effects, but we cannot yet know about long-term effects can we?
The embedded graphs there are great to look at other acute Trusts. In Leicester we are doing better than most, but there is a wide range. Birmingham is doing almost implausibly well.
I am not sure trolling all Scotland is a winning formula for people who assert themselves to be Unionists
Unionism is very much more honoured in the breach than the observance nowadays. Even the SCons have largely given up on the 'you can be a patriotic Scot and a a Brit' stuff.
This was posted earlier by @sirclive (originally from Florin Vio Sandu). For me this picture has a simpler stronger message that those of Boris and the Boffins earlier today, and it provides a rather different policy perspective.
Why has influenza and pneumonia been combined into a single figure?
Off thread, I see Sporting Index have finally reopened their US Election markets. The ECVs for the principals are now:
Trump: 235/241 Biden 297/303
I still think Biden is a buy at that level because the downside risk is small. Pennsylvania is looking solid for him and there are no really big States in jeopardy. On the other hand, if he should flip Texas (unlikely but...) or Ohio (distinctly possible) the returns suddenly become handsome.
Yep. It's the upside downside imbalance which generates the value. Supremacy is a 57 sell now against my buy at 28. I'm on at a big (for me) unit stake and normally I would be taking some profit with this sort of green movement. I'm quite wussy like that. But I am not doing so in this case. The price is too low to justify it. I would need to see 75 for a partial exit and at least 100 for a full one.
270 and up is the market to rack up a big win (I'm on at +37).
Yes you lose a bit if narrow biden victory, but the upside is much higher for the leverage.
Yes I'm on that too - but supremacy is my Big One. All looking good atm but not done till it's done. ☺
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
After the "debate" I must admit I'm actually shocked. It seems to me that the damage that is being done to the US body politic is permanent. No country can survive the triumph of fools. I am hearing tragic stories from around America, where essentially no public work is being done. That cities are rotting under thousands of tonnes of garbage, the health system, creaky at the best of times, is now barely working at all for millions of people. These are just a few crises that are barely being reported. The stunning, unutterable mess of a gerrymandered Congress, Presidency and pretty soon Supreme Court speaks of a system that has sold its honour to corruption and the highest bidder. I have lived in the US, I have loved the States and its people, and it just feels like I am watching a friend wasting away from a truly terrible sickness. The vile corruption of Donald John Trump is appalling, but it is not the cause of all this, it is a symptom. This is horrific and it is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Of course Trump should face trial, and if convicted serve time, but even this bitter catharsis will not be enough. He should never have gotten within 100 miles of office.
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
These days i think civil servants would settle for 2 out of 3.
After the "debate" I must admit I'm actually shocked. It seems to me that the damage that is being done to the US body politic is permanent. No country can survive the triumph of fools. I am hearing tragic stories from around America, where essentially no public work is being done. That cities are rotting under thousands of tonnes of garbage, the health system, creaky at the best of times, is now barely working at all for millions of people. These are just a few crises that are barely being reported. The stunning, unutterable mess of a gerrymandered Congress, Presidency and pretty soon Supreme Court speaks of a system that has sold its honour to corruption and the highest bidder. I have lived in the US, I have loved the States and its people, and it just feels like I am watching a friend wasting away from a truly terrible sickness. The vile corruption of Donald John Trump is appalling, but it is not the cause of all this, it is a symptom. This is horrific and it is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Of course Trump should face trial, and if convicted serve time, but even this bitter catharsis will not be enough. He should never have gotten within 100 miles of office.
The virus hasn't really created very much. But it has revealed a heck of a lot which was hiding in plain sight unremarked. That goes for polities, businesses and individuals.
After the "debate" I must admit I'm actually shocked. It seems to me that the damage that is being done to the US body politic is permanent. No country can survive the triumph of fools. I am hearing tragic stories from around America, where essentially no public work is being done. That cities are rotting under thousands of tonnes of garbage, the health system, creaky at the best of times, is now barely working at all for millions of people. These are just a few crises that are barely being reported. The stunning, unutterable mess of a gerrymandered Congress, Presidency and pretty soon Supreme Court speaks of a system that has sold its honour to corruption and the highest bidder. I have lived in the US, I have loved the States and its people, and it just feels like I am watching a friend wasting away from a truly terrible sickness. The vile corruption of Donald John Trump is appalling, but it is not the cause of all this, it is a symptom. This is horrific and it is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Of course Trump should face trial, and if convicted serve time, but even this bitter catharsis will not be enough. He should never have gotten within 100 miles of office.
Relax, Cicero. I think they're going to Vote Him Out.
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about.
I think it was about a bit more than that, or else Sir Humphrey would have been an out and out hero rather than, at times, pretty nefarious, even though Hacker definitely did need reining in at times!
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
I fear that Trump got what he was aiming for: the ‘both as bad as each other’ verdict. He knows his supporters will vote, and wants to discourage everyone else from voting.
After the "debate" I must admit I'm actually shocked. It seems to me that the damage that is being done to the US body politic is permanent. No country can survive the triumph of fools. I am hearing tragic stories from around America, where essentially no public work is being done. That cities are rotting under thousands of tonnes of garbage, the health system, creaky at the best of times, is now barely working at all for millions of people. These are just a few crises that are barely being reported. The stunning, unutterable mess of a gerrymandered Congress, Presidency and pretty soon Supreme Court speaks of a system that has sold its honour to corruption and the highest bidder. I have lived in the US, I have loved the States and its people, and it just feels like I am watching a friend wasting away from a truly terrible sickness. The vile corruption of Donald John Trump is appalling, but it is not the cause of all this, it is a symptom. This is horrific and it is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Of course Trump should face trial, and if convicted serve time, but even this bitter catharsis will not be enough. He should never have gotten within 100 miles of office.
Relax, Cicero. I think they're going to Vote Him Out.
Cicero is just a bit worried as he's seen the fall of a republic before and knows the signs...
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
He didn't just 'fail to condemn' white supremacists, he actively told them to "standby".
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
But that was more likely to positive patients being sent back to care homes to the infect the rest, the rest who were the most vulnerable to this disease.
We wouldn't be stupid enough to do that again, would we? Well...
It's worth noting that the BBC story from 30 September is about events that happened in March to May. Figures obtained by the BBC show from March to May more than 200 patients were placed in care homes before it was known if they were carrying the virus.
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
I fear that Trump got what he was aiming for: the ‘both as bad as each other’ verdict. He knows his supporters will vote, and wants to discourage everyone else from voting.
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
Why can't it be done?
It has been done very successfully Down Under.
It is a policy that works.
Did you read the article?
I am surprised that the Australian system costs them £7.2 billion per year to run, or has the Guardian gained a few orders of magnitude?
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
I fear that Trump got what he was aiming for: the ‘both as bad as each other’ verdict. He knows his supporters will vote, and wants to discourage everyone else from voting.
It's an odd strategy when he's behind.
It’s not the approach that would conventionally be followed, but then Trump hasn’t got where he is today by being conventional.
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
I fear that Trump got what he was aiming for: the ‘both as bad as each other’ verdict. He knows his supporters will vote, and wants to discourage everyone else from voting.
It's an odd strategy when he's behind.
Trump is, unfortunately, pretty effective at times, but he only has so many tools in his arsenal.
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
Why can't it be done?
It has been done very successfully Down Under.
It is a policy that works.
Did you read the article?
I am surprised that the Australian system costs them £7.2 billion per year to run, or has the Guardian gained a few orders of magnitude?
Yes, seems like officials looking for reasons not to do it, rather than looking for methods to make it work.
The idea works, that's been proven elsewhere. Letting people drown to death crossing the Channel in dinghies is not a better or more humane alternative.
This was posted earlier by @sirclive (originally from Florin Vio Sandu). For me this picture has a simpler stronger message that those of Boris and the Boffins earlier today, and it provides a rather different policy perspective.
I’m not sure this says what you think it says.
This refers to either ‘COVID-19’ or ‘Flu and Pneumonia’ (which slightly confusingly means flu or pneumonia) being mentioned somewhere on the death certificate. In other words it includes people both dying with and dying from these diseases.
However the death certificates also specify a single underlying cause and the records show Covid was listed as the underlying cause in 93% of the certificates that mentioned it whereas historically Flu or Pneumonia were the underlying cause in only 28% of certificates mentioning them. And Flu specifically is even less likely to have been the underlying cause - in 2019 it was listed as such in only 4.6% of cases involving ‘Flu and Pneumonia’.
So, while we definitely don’t have all of the data for 2020 yet, the graph you shared almost certainly shows that Flu itself is currently still much less deadly than Covid. And, even taken together, Pneumonia and Flu have caused many fewer deaths than Covid over the last few months.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
But that was more likely to positive patients being sent back to care homes to the infect the rest, the rest who were the most vulnerable to this disease.
We wouldn't be stupid enough to do that again, would we? Well...
It's worth noting that the BBC story from 30 September is about events that happened in March to May. Figures obtained by the BBC show from March to May more than 200 patients were placed in care homes before it was known if they were carrying the virus.
I confess I didn't stay up to watch the Presidential debate last night but it sounds every bit as most might have expected.
The thing for me with Donald Trump is he seems to have no respect for the office of President beyond the opportunity it affords him for self-promotion, self-importance and self-aggrandisement. He is very good at self-promotion and has, over three decades, cultivated that image and in many respects it's ideal for a political figure but for campaigning, provoking and arguing not for governing which by its nature requires consensus.
I can only presume it's because Trump, unlike any other President I can recall, has never "served" in terms of holding public office or working in a public capacity (I include Eisenhower's military career in this). Every other President was a Senator, a Governor, a Congressman while Trump has never even been dog catcher.
His election represented, I suppose, the ultimate anti-politician anti-establishment sentiment. Irrespective of the truth about his business dealings and associations with other political figures through the decades, Trump portrayed himself as his own man.
Like many business people, he is used to barking orders and having them obeyed. He can charm when he needs to but he doesn't argue and persuade - he cajoles and commands.
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
It's the job of the Civil Service to stop politicians doing stupid, illegal or expensive shit. That was what Yes Minister was all about. Johnson knows this can't be done anyway, he's just virtue signalling to the [whatever the polite term is for racists these days] crowd who constitute his base.
Why can't it be done?
It has been done very successfully Down Under.
It is a policy that works.
Did you read the article?
I am surprised that the Australian system costs them £7.2 billion per year to run, or has the Guardian gained a few orders of magnitude?
No idea where the Guardian got that figure. This is from last year and advocacy group against this process whose obvious motivation is to come up with a big number, but it isnt anywhere near that.
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
I fear that Trump got what he was aiming for: the ‘both as bad as each other’ verdict. He knows his supporters will vote, and wants to discourage everyone else from voting.
It's an odd strategy when he's behind.
Trump is, unfortunately, pretty effective at times, but he only has so many tools in his arsenal.
Just listening to Starmer & Co criticising Johnson for incompetence bungling, blah blah blah
You gave him another six months to do what he wants.
You abstained.
So if Labour had voted against it, would it have been voted down?
Oh wait, it wouldn’t.
That just shows you don't understand how Parliament works then. If Labour had come out against then the Brady rebels would have forced the government to make significant concessions in the bill including a vote on all measures before they are introduced or within 24h of them being introduced in an emergency. Labour's cowardice has meant another 6 months of no oversight of the executive when they don't feel like giving MPs a debate or vote. The rebels had the numbers to defeat the government and Labour wussed out, it's very disappointing.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
He didn't just 'fail to condemn' white supremacists, he actively told them to "standby".
That is even worse.
Presumably Trump apologists will tell us he just "misspoke".
But surely there comes a point when a president isn't mentally fit for office. And telling fascists to "stand by" by mistake - and immediately afterwards telling the country that there's a problem that needs dealing with - seems like a reasonable diagnostic.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
I thought @MrEd's post was extremely illuminating (and slightly nerve-wracking) from a betting POV, and had zero to do with white supremacy either way.
Am I now in the shit for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone?
At the restaurants they slather them in oil which makes them amazing. Off a supermarket shelf (all supermarket pizzas) they simply don't have that extra loveliness.
There's nothing amazing about a pizza express pizza. As a fellow Londoner I'm extremely disappointed in you at the moment.
This is a guy who waxes lyrical over a spam butty, though.
I’m just about old enough to remember when Pizza Express did decent pizza. (Used to do an excellent crab salad, too.)
Interesting thread on Trump's financials. If you hide the source and destination of regular money transfers that's usually an indicator of money laundering.
Coincidentally or not, Trump has close ties with the Russian mafia.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
I thought @MrEd's post was extremely illuminating (and slightly nerve-wracking) from a betting POV, and had zero to do with white supremacy either way.
Am I now in the shit for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone?
Not really. Partisans will see and hear what they want to. After all, we had a large number of otherwise reasonable people who were equally blind to Corbyn’s more egregious faults.
I don’t really understand how you would watch the debate and come away with the impression that’s OK behaviour for a president, but I acknowledge it’s possible.
If it the Covid-19 numbers do not improve then get ready for more lockdowns and Christmas will be cancelled.
I think this and its implication is interesting in the psychology (and important because of that).
You are in a vulnerable household and have said that you aren't going to socialise (or at least not go to Cineworld - those that haven't closed for good) or on holiday until there is a vaccine.
Would I be right in saying that, if it were your choice, you would like to see harsher lockdown measures across the board and certainly Christmas and skiing in Verbier be damned?
I'm flexible, I'd be ok for unlimited people at Christmas dinners provided they all had been in isolation for the preceding 14 days and were free of the symptoms.
I went to a wedding in Birmingham this weekend, I didn't go back to my house until I had a private test and had the results back.
I realise that's not an option for most people but I'm prepared to be flexible, what I do object is to is people who seem to go out of their way to infect others, yes I'm talking about people who go on holiday to Covid-19 hotspots then don't isolate for 14 days on their return.
Surely it would be more important to isolate afterwards so as not to infect "the public"?
Plus who would know what is or isn't a Covid hotspot. Compared with what, Burnley?
Plus as mentioned earlier, haven't a large number (a majority?) of deaths been in care homes which have not allowed visitors?
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
I don't disagree. My point was that a large proportion of cases and deaths and related effects occurred in places which forbade visitors.
But that was more likely to positive patients being sent back to care homes to the infect the rest, the rest who were the most vulnerable to this disease.
We wouldn't be stupid enough to do that again, would we? Well...
The above figures include leaners without whom it's 51-40 to Biden - the MoE is 3.1% and the headline figures represent a swing of 4.5% to Biden. Trump's support among leaners has improved his position slightly but Biden's vote seems solid at present.
Biden's lead is built on a massive lead among female voters while among men it's much closer.
A new California poll confirms a massive Biden lead - 59-32.
That's a 1.5% swing to Trump from 2016 but that won't bring much comfort to his campaign. Even among White men, Biden leads 47-45 and the challenger has huge leads in all other groups. Geographically, Biden leads in rural as well as urban areas and even in the usually more conservative Inland Empire area Biden leads 50-41.
Just listening to Starmer & Co criticising Johnson for incompetence bungling, blah blah blah
You gave him another six months to do what he wants.
You abstained.
So if Labour had voted against it, would it have been voted down?
Oh wait, it wouldn’t.
That just shows you don't understand how Parliament works then. If Labour had come out against then the Brady rebels would have forced the government to make significant concessions in the bill including a vote on all measures before they are introduced or within 24h of them being introduced in an emergency. Labour's cowardice has meant another 6 months of no oversight of the executive when they don't feel like giving MPs a debate or vote. The rebels had the numbers to defeat the government and Labour wussed out, it's very disappointing.
Absolutely agreed.
It comes to something when I was supporting the Brady rebels and wanted Johnson defeated on this, but Gallow didn't.
I opposed Johnson having free reign to act more than Gallow or Keir Starmer it seems.
Hmmmm, the supplemental don't really mesh with the headline figure. Based on the majority of supplementals you'd think Trump would be ahead by about 5 ish?
Except there is the "should the ACA be repealed" question. And there an outright majority want it kept.
I'm sure his star will fade, but even if his policies do not save as many jobs as some would like, I think the majority of people will see a line that it's his fault millions of jobs are at risk and take the view that millions of jobs being at risk is probably inevitable.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
I thought @MrEd's post was extremely illuminating (and slightly nerve-wracking) from a betting POV, and had zero to do with white supremacy either way.
Am I now in the shit for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone?
Not really. Partisans will see and hear what they want to. After all, we had a large number of otherwise reasonable people who were equally blind to Corbyn’s more egregious faults.
I don’t really understand how you would watch the debate and come away with the impression that’s OK behaviour for a president, but I acknowledge it’s possible.
What in God's name makes you think that I or anyone else thinks that that (or indeed anything else that Donald Trump has ever said or done) is OK behaviour for a president? Thank you for illustrating exactly the sort of passive-aggressive toothsucky mindreading that I was highlighting.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
More the merrier. What's key from the betting angle is being able to distinguish ramping from insight. I'm great at this.
I will stress once again, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean it doesn't fuck up your life.
And that's the bit people are forgetting - I don't know anyone who has had Covid-19 who has fully recovered from it.
I am sorry but that is garbage -- Many people who get it don't even get a mild illness
As I'm sure eek does not expect everyone they encounter to provide a recent test result, it follows that they are talking about people who did display symptoms. And yes, it is very much the case that many people who showed symptoms are experiencing long-term after effects. I too know people who so affected. It is not garbage.
Accepted that there are lingering effects, but we cannot yet know about long-term effects can we?
There’s a big follow up project in Bergamo, where I was last week. They reckon about 30% have some sort of enduring symptoms, ranging from mild to serious. They are just doing the second follow up and the good news is that some are recovered since the first follow up, and many are improved. But some are still seriously ill.
Just listening to Starmer & Co criticising Johnson for incompetence bungling, blah blah blah
You gave him another six months to do what he wants.
You abstained.
So if Labour had voted against it, would it have been voted down?
Oh wait, it wouldn’t.
That just shows you don't understand how Parliament works then. If Labour had come out against then the Brady rebels would have forced the government to make significant concessions in the bill including a vote on all measures before they are introduced or within 24h of them being introduced in an emergency. Labour's cowardice has meant another 6 months of no oversight of the executive when they don't feel like giving MPs a debate or vote. The rebels had the numbers to defeat the government and Labour wussed out, it's very disappointing.
Absolutely agreed.
It comes to something when I was supporting the Brady rebels and wanted Johnson defeated on this, but Gallow didn't.
I opposed Johnson having free reign to act more than Gallow or Keir Starmer it seems.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
Trump failed to condemn white supremacists. If someone is happy to explain away or excuse that well, that says a lot about them.
I thought @MrEd's post was extremely illuminating (and slightly nerve-wracking) from a betting POV, and had zero to do with white supremacy either way.
Am I now in the shit for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone?
You'll only be in the shit if you follow it bettingwise. It's wishful thinking from an ardent Trump supporter.
Getting rid of decent civil servants and replacing them with Cummings yes men is what leads you to more of this
It’s just a rehash of the First World War plan to put a steel net between Dover and Calais to keep German submarines out of the channel. They even got as far as building two of the towers that were to be sunk to support the net; one is still used as a light tower off the east coast of the Isle of Wight.
Funnily enough, that idea came out of a civil service committee tasked with finding a solution to the submarine threat, back before sonar, depth charges and anti-submarine aircraft.
Late to the party on last night's debate. I didn't watch it but saw some of the highlights and have been reading the commentary on it and the comments here. Funnily enough, it seems to have shifted to a view of a Biden win from, at the time of the debate, a more balanced view.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
Given 40% at least of US voters will still vote for Trump even if Biden wins comfortably there is no harm having a few Trump supporters on here like MrEd to ensure all views are catered for, this is supposed to be a political betting and discussion forum after all
More the merrier. What's key from the betting angle is being able to distinguish ramping from insight. I'm great at this.
I didn't watch the debate. I have just heard part of it and what I thought of Biden was "peevish" which is not a good luck for a potential POTUS. OTOH he passed the "not sectionably demented" test (better than I thought he would) which is what matters.
Comments
I've no idea why SPIN have this market with a smaller effective spread and a slightly lower mid-point than the main one, but who are we to argue?
You gave him another six months to do what he wants.
You abstained.
Oh wait, it wouldn’t.
The problem isn’t being allowed out, the problem is finding places that will allow them in.
Voting against it was what they wanted.
Your majority you sort it out. Oh and Brexit and the economy while you're at it.
Lockdown: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. As far as one can tell, forever, or at least until a magical vaccine rides to the rescue (which is always due in 6 months time).
Risk segmentation: 80-something grandparents can't see their grandchildren. For around 6 months whilst everyone else has Covid, and then life can more or less return to normal. Meanwhile those not at risk get to live almost normal life, starting tomorrow.
There is no safe solution for our 80 year olds to see their grandkids right now, but that doesn't mean that risk segmentation isn't the answer.
It is, though harsh, not the least decent way of dealing with an insoluble problem in a world where at least a couple of billion people would have a legitimate claim, and that number happens to overlap with a similar number who could be eager economic migrants.
There are, like all the big problems facing us at the moment, no good ways of dealing with it, only bad and worse ones.
Tories, Anglicans and Labour voters are united mostly in wanting something reasonably humane which does not overwhelm already socially challenged parts of the UK.
A "Xmas meal for one" beckons, I think.
I recommend it to anyone who has not yet got their snout in the trough.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1311335828937994242?s=19
Anyone who makes it to the shores of Kent, is obviously a good seaman or lucky.
In either case they get hit over the head with a belaying pin and wake up to discover they've enlisted for 7 years in the RN. 7 years of continuous overseas tours....
If they do 7 years, they get citizenship. If they desert while at an overseas port... well good bye then...
So, food, accommodation, good pay. What's not to like?
For me this picture has a simpler stronger message that those of Boris and the Boffins earlier today, and it provides a rather different policy perspective.
As someone who would vote for Trump if I was a US voter, there was nothing in there which would make me think "wow, I can't vote for him now I know this." If you don't know what he is like after all these years, you have been living in a cave. My reasoning would be much of America is in a mess, much of which is related to its trade policies and, while Trump's personal ways of conducting himself leave much to be desired, sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler. TBH, though, if Biden won, I wouldn't be weeping in the streets or calling the election a fraud. He wins, that is that.
On the debate itself, I think DavidL had it bang on the money. Trump came across as a bully but that is the way of the world and you need to be able to stand up for yourself. In fact, Biden came across as being in the worst of both worlds - he didn't push back so forcefully that you thought he can defend himself against the bullies but he made enough cutting remarks to come across a genial Ronald Reagan style character.
In fact, even though it may not be obvious now and it hasn't been commented on much, I think the debate has undermined one of Biden's key subliminal calling cards i.e. that he can restore grace and dignity to the Presidency after Trump's years. After last night's performance, it is going to be hard for him to claim that.
One final point. He may also regret calling Trump a clown. Yes, I know many on him view him as such but a lot of older Americans, particularly military, tend to have the view that "you salute the rank, not the man" (clip here everyone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTRZRRlA4sw). Now, I don't think diehards will care nor the young but, for a sliver of undecideds, it may be an issue.
The interesting thing is that, just as the polling overall seems to have got better for Trump in the past few days, the Republicans seem to be having jittery nerves over the level of mail-in voting and what that means for the election. There is a question here of how much is being pulled forward and, also, whether it leads to more votes being discounted.
'...Sometimes you need in politics, as in war, a barroom brawler.'
It's true, and many of us of a different political persuasion would drink to that. What you do not need is a racist, a mysogenist, and a liar who actively encourages thugs and thuggery.
You'd vote for this? Really?
Yes you lose a bit if narrow biden victory, but the upside is much higher for the leverage.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/30/revealed-no-10-explores-sending-asylum-seekers-to-moldova-morocco-and-papua-new-guinea
I am shocked to hear that Sir Humphrey is finding a million reasons it can't be done.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/sep/30/half-of-conservative-party-members-believe-islam-is-threat-poll-finds
https://twitter.com/EvanMcMullin/status/1311359733773660160?s=19
I have lived in the US, I have loved the States and its people, and it just feels like I am watching a friend wasting away from a truly terrible sickness.
The vile corruption of Donald John Trump is appalling, but it is not the cause of all this, it is a symptom. This is horrific and it is not likely to be fixed anytime soon. Of course Trump should face trial, and if convicted serve time, but even this bitter catharsis will not be enough.
He should never have gotten within 100 miles of office.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-debate-poll/
Executive summary is that Biden came out of it better, but not by a lot.
But it has revealed a heck of a lot which was hiding in plain sight unremarked.
That goes for polities, businesses and individuals.
It will save lives.
It has been done very successfully Down Under.
It is a policy that works.
That is even worse.
Figures obtained by the BBC show from March to May more than 200 patients were placed in care homes before it was known if they were carrying the virus.
Be kind to them; they are only playing leapfrog.
I am surprised that the Australian system costs them £7.2 billion per year to run, or has the Guardian gained a few orders of magnitude?
Emphasis on the arse.
The idea works, that's been proven elsewhere. Letting people drown to death crossing the Channel in dinghies is not a better or more humane alternative.
I find £7.2 billion implausible.
Any of these would be landslide territory of course, but the value on TX is in the EV markets.
UK could be the same once the BBC is gutted.
This refers to either ‘COVID-19’ or ‘Flu and Pneumonia’ (which slightly confusingly means flu or pneumonia) being mentioned somewhere on the death certificate. In other words it includes people both dying with and dying from these diseases.
However the death certificates also specify a single underlying cause and the records show Covid was listed as the underlying cause in 93% of the certificates that mentioned it whereas historically Flu or Pneumonia were the underlying cause in only 28% of certificates mentioning them. And Flu specifically is even less likely to have been the underlying cause - in 2019 it was listed as such in only 4.6% of cases involving ‘Flu and Pneumonia’.
So, while we definitely don’t have all of the data for 2020 yet, the graph you shared almost certainly shows that Flu itself is currently still much less deadly than Covid. And, even taken together, Pneumonia and Flu have caused many fewer deaths than Covid over the last few months.
https://fullfact.org/health/flu-covid-deaths/
I confess I didn't stay up to watch the Presidential debate last night but it sounds every bit as most might have expected.
The thing for me with Donald Trump is he seems to have no respect for the office of President beyond the opportunity it affords him for self-promotion, self-importance and self-aggrandisement. He is very good at self-promotion and has, over three decades, cultivated that image and in many respects it's ideal for a political figure but for campaigning, provoking and arguing not for governing which by its nature requires consensus.
I can only presume it's because Trump, unlike any other President I can recall, has never "served" in terms of holding public office or working in a public capacity (I include Eisenhower's military career in this). Every other President was a Senator, a Governor, a Congressman while Trump has never even been dog catcher.
His election represented, I suppose, the ultimate anti-politician anti-establishment sentiment. Irrespective of the truth about his business dealings and associations with other political figures through the decades, Trump portrayed himself as his own man.
Like many business people, he is used to barking orders and having them obeyed. He can charm when he needs to but he doesn't argue and persuade - he cajoles and commands.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/03/offshore-detention-costs-taxpayers-up-to-573000-each-person-report-finds
But surely there comes a point when a president isn't mentally fit for office. And telling fascists to "stand by" by mistake - and immediately afterwards telling the country that there's a problem that needs dealing with - seems like a reasonable diagnostic.
Am I now in the shit for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone, for failing to condemn someone?
I even advised against someone putting down a "free money" bet on Trump winning it a few months ago.
Before they hid it behind a pay wall the morning consult presidential approval tracker had Alaska going south for Trump.
Getting rid of decent civil servants and replacing them with Cummings yes men is what leads you to more of this
I’m just about old enough to remember when Pizza Express did decent pizza.
(Used to do an excellent crab salad, too.)
Coincidentally or not, Trump has close ties with the Russian mafia.
https://twitter.com/adamdavidson/status/1310929478030426112
Partisans will see and hear what they want to. After all, we had a large number of otherwise reasonable people who were equally blind to Corbyn’s more egregious faults.
I don’t really understand how you would watch the debate and come away with the impression that’s OK behaviour for a president, but I acknowledge it’s possible.
Both Rasmussen and USC Dornlife have national polls showing Biden leading 51-43 which would be pretty convincing if accurate.
The fact Rasmussen, a pollster normally quite favourable to the Republicans, is showing such a solid Biden lead is noteworthy.
A New Hampshire poll by the University of New Hampshire has Biden ahead 53-44.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=survey_center_polls
The above figures include leaners without whom it's 51-40 to Biden - the MoE is 3.1% and the headline figures represent a swing of 4.5% to Biden. Trump's support among leaners has improved his position slightly but Biden's vote seems solid at present.
Biden's lead is built on a massive lead among female voters while among men it's much closer.
A new California poll confirms a massive Biden lead - 59-32.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d15fdb0d-701d-495c-a67f-e17bfcc3bf92
That's a 1.5% swing to Trump from 2016 but that won't bring much comfort to his campaign. Even among White men, Biden leads 47-45 and the challenger has huge leads in all other groups. Geographically, Biden leads in rural as well as urban areas and even in the usually more conservative Inland Empire area Biden leads 50-41.
It comes to something when I was supporting the Brady rebels and wanted Johnson defeated on this, but Gallow didn't.
I opposed Johnson having free reign to act more than Gallow or Keir Starmer it seems.
Except there is the "should the ACA be repealed" question. And there an outright majority want it kept.
Funnily enough, that idea came out of a civil service committee tasked with finding a solution to the submarine threat, back before sonar, depth charges and anti-submarine aircraft.