Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
Oh, so you don't think NI partt of the UK? Either it is or it is not - you are leaving it in a state of Schroedingerism rather like Mr Johnson has of late.
NI is part of the UK but not GB, I user the words 'wider UK' for a reason
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
Of those killed in the Troubles only 125 were in England, 1541 in Belfast, 477 in Armagh and 340 in Tyrone and 243 in Down and 227 in Derry and 209 in Antrim.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
State of play. Georgia - Biden leads 7248 Nevada - Biden leads 22,657 Arizona - Biden leads 29,861 Pennsylvania - Biden leads 28,833 Big batch of results expected to be released in Pennsylvania at 0900 which are expected to extend Biden’s lead. Penn alone gets Biden past 270
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
The most important thing there is the “?” It puts the NYP more on the side of those saying this is still up in the air
That's not the most important thing. Yes they've put a question mark, but they answer the question with noting he is 'so close' rather than merely having a headline that says it is up in the air, 50/50 or whatever. The question mark indicates it is not finalised, but the direction it looks to be heading is presented as being clear.
State of play. Georgia - Biden leads 7248 Nevada - Biden leads 22,657 Arizona - Biden leads 29,861 Pennsylvania - Biden leads 28,833 Big batch of results expected to be released in Pennsylvania at 0900 which are expected to extend Biden’s lead. Penn alone gets Biden past 270
Or in short, Trump is now a reluctant Turkish conscript.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
Oh, so you don't think NI partt of the UK? Either it is or it is not - you are leaving it in a state of Schroedingerism rather like Mr Johnson has of late.
NI is part of the UK but not GB, I user the words 'wider UK' for a reason
You're moving the goals again. Nobody was talking about GB till you came out with it. In any case GB had no legal standing or status after 1800 except insofar as it was the not-Irish bit of the UK. Until of course the GFA and now Mr Johnson's hiving it off from NI (some wartime regulations apart).
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
The parties in question did not ignore their effects. They deny them. And condemn any action to change the result.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
Of those killed in the Troubles only 125 were in England but 1541 were killed in Belfast, 477 in Armagh and 340 in Tyrone and 243 in Down and 227 in Derry and 209 in Antrim.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
Rather more than a few of those killed in NI were from England, Wales, and Scotland.
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
Basically, a younger version of Biden.
And what they'll end up with is a younger Bernie with extra wokeness.
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
Basically, a younger version of Biden.
Spot on. Someone who focuses on making working people’s lives better - not fashionable causes and culture wars.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
I agree, and there lies the problem with Brexit. Policy is being driven by free traders, when probably the significant majority of Leave voters favour protectionism and enhancement of workers protections. It is not possible to ride both horses much longer.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
I get that people don't understand and criticise the speed of the election counting, but i really do think that this criticism comes from a very different perspective of the conduct of elections. There are a number of factors in US elections which simply don't apply in the rest of the World and a very different view about the election, and particularly counting process.
- In most countries any delay in election counting delays the transfer of power. This is not the case in America - or at least not in a legal sense. - Elections in most countries are not governed quite so tightly and overseen to the same extent by the courts. Very rarely do election issues go to the courts, whereas in the US it is routine. They need to get it right, because everything is challengeable. - Almost every level of US governance and legal processes are influenced by the ballot box, and at every level it really matters in a way which perhaps it doesn't (or isn't seen to) in many other countries. We are all waiting for the Presidential votes. But there are hugely important Senate and House races that they are counting at the same time. - The tradition in American elections is that races are "called" (on the basis of statistical probability) in advance of final votes being tallied. Whilst "calls" have no official status there is usually no time pressure on the counting process once calls have been made. The frustration is in large part because of the lack of calls from the networks. And i think the networks are being ultra careful this time, far more than they would have been in the past. The election officials are just working at their normal timetables in accordance with their legal obligations.
The upshot of the above (and other) issues is that in most countries the balance between expediency and accuracy is very different in most countries compared to the US. In the UK for example, as long as we know the winner we really don't care that much if they won by 1,000 or 2,000 votes. Outside of the possibility of fraud, America really do try to get things right to the tiniest detail. To the extent that once they get down to the last few thousand votes, they really do take a long time to count. That is the nature of the last few ballots to be counted (provisional ballots etc).
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
Of those killed in the Troubles only 125 were in England but 1541 were killed in Belfast, 477 in Armagh and 340 in Tyrone and 243 in Down and 227 in Derry and 209 in Antrim.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
Rather more than a few of those killed in NI were from England, Wales, and Scotland.
Did they get there from Iran via the Cape of Good Hope?
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
Buttigieg's husband (Chasten Buttigieg) would obviously be First Gentleman, as Bill Clinton would have if Hilary had been elected.
In terms of bachelor Presidents, James Buchanan's niece acted as his First Lady. Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor but (somewhat creepily) married his adopted daughter in office. It was slightly less creepy than that to be fair (although very weird by today's standards) - in those days the rights of women made it very difficult for a widow with children so he took on various legal responsibilities following the death of a friend but wasn't her "Dad" in the modern sense. Big age gap though - they married in the White House when she was 21.
Cleveland's wife (Frances Fulsom) was an interesting figure - very independent and driven in many ways, but a leading light in the anti-female suffrage movement later on. She argued women weren't intelligent enough to get the vote... but her granddaughter (Philippa Foot) went on to be one of the foremost philosophers of her generation, coming up with the famous "trolley problem"!
I thought First Ladies had a fairly specific role in terms of being the feminine side of the White House: going to Baby Showers and ladies' lunches as well as more serious things.
I wonder whether the first trans President will be able to claim the position of first female President?
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
Buttigieg's husband (Chasten Buttigieg) would obviously be First Gentleman, as Bill Clinton would have if Hilary had been elected.
In terms of bachelor Presidents, James Buchanan's niece acted as his First Lady. Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor but (somewhat creepily) married his adopted daughter in office. It was slightly less creepy than that to be fair (although very weird by today's standards) - in those days the rights of women made it very difficult for a widow with children so he took on various legal responsibilities following the death of a friend but wasn't her "Dad" in the modern sense. Big age gap though - they married in the White House when she was 21.
Cleveland's wife (Frances Fulsom) was an interesting figure - very independent and driven in many ways, but a leading light in the anti-female suffrage movement later on. She argued women weren't intelligent enough to get the vote... but her granddaughter (Philippa Foot) went on to be one of the foremost philosophers of her generation, coming up with the famous "trolley problem"!
I thought First Ladies had a fairly specific role in terms of being the feminine side of the White House: going to Baby Showers and ladies' lunches as well as more serious things.
I wonder whether the first trans President will be able to claim the position of first female President?
I’m just loving the idea that the job of the First Gentleman under those circumstances would be to Chasten Buttigieg.
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
The Romans make a desert and call it Peace.
She transitioned us from a failing post-industrial economy to a successful services-based one. We now no longer have crippling industrial and labour disputes that disrupt us all, where no-one wins.
We are all better off as a result, both economically and from a health point of view: think of the fact men don't have to go down horrible coal mines every day and die of lung-related issues in their 60s as a result.
The challenge is that a lot of those ex-industrial areas have lost a sense of community and are yet to be fully rejuvenated with new sustainable jobs. Something all parties should be interested in fixing.
Now you are reminding us of May's downing st steps speech. Another that never even begun to happen
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
Buttigieg's husband (Chasten Buttigieg) would obviously be First Gentleman, as Bill Clinton would have if Hilary had been elected.
In terms of bachelor Presidents, James Buchanan's niece acted as his First Lady. Grover Cleveland was elected as a bachelor but (somewhat creepily) married his adopted daughter in office. It was slightly less creepy than that to be fair (although very weird by today's standards) - in those days the rights of women made it very difficult for a widow with children so he took on various legal responsibilities following the death of a friend but wasn't her "Dad" in the modern sense. Big age gap though - they married in the White House when she was 21.
Cleveland's wife (Frances Fulsom) was an interesting figure - very independent and driven in many ways, but a leading light in the anti-female suffrage movement later on. She argued women weren't intelligent enough to get the vote... but her granddaughter (Philippa Foot) went on to be one of the foremost philosophers of her generation, coming up with the famous "trolley problem"!
I thought First Ladies had a fairly specific role in terms of being the feminine side of the White House: going to Baby Showers and ladies' lunches as well as more serious things.
I wonder whether the first trans President will be able to claim the position of first female President?
I’d be amazed if the first female president was trans.
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
The problem also is that they have tried to automate things, in part because of concerns that hand counting is open to fraud and part for efficiency, and some of their infrastructure is not great. One county in Michigan has just flipped 6K votes from the Democrats to the Republicans because they found a software glitch. They have now found nearly 50 other counties in MI use that piece of software (and yes I expect there to be similar issues where the Democrats have also been whacked and probably in close states as well).
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
That isn't a realistic scenario as the legal cases would run the other way, requiring the certification of votes in those states in the absence of evidence of widespread fraud. These cases would certainly succeed.
Secondly, this only conceivably works where the state has unified GOP governance, like Georgia. But, in that case, THEY are the ones running the election so they'd be saying their own process was fraudulant.
Additionally, you'd have to be looking at Republican majorities in state legislatures blocking certification the result in their own state, disenfranchising the majority of their own voters (and a fair number of Republican voters too - even if a majority of Republicans supported it, a sizable minority have not drunk the Kool Aid). That'd be very, very, very "brave".
Again, utterly unrealistic moving of divisions that don't exist around a map in the bunker.
Over the last month Mr Ed has hypothesised various theories explaining how Trump is going to win. One by one they have all fallen by the wayside. This one will go the same way.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
So your evidence of "legitimate questions" is there was no recount in Michigan 4 years ago? ie you have none.
You are almost as shameless as the gangsters you are happy to support.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
I agree, and there lies the problem with Brexit. Policy is being driven by free traders, when probably the significant majority of Leave voters favour protectionism and enhancement of workers protections. It is not possible to ride both horses much longer.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
It's an institutional problem as well.
A while back, the people behind the Raspberry PI computer wanted the tariffs on import of electronics change. The situation was that importing finished devices was much cheaper than importing components. They wanted a level playing field - equal tariffs on components and finished items.
They were told that the Foreign Office would veto any such changes. Because it would upset the Chinese.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
I agree, and there lies the problem with Brexit. Policy is being driven by free traders, when probably the significant majority of Leave voters favour protectionism and enhancement of workers protections. It is not possible to ride both horses much longer.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
One thing which baffles me is the automatic assumption that many have that more free trade is always a good thing.
I suspect that some think of free trade as a sort of City trading middle man activity rather than the people who add value at either end by actually producing useful goods or services.
The unquestioning support for ever more free trade was I think one of the reasons for Brexit.
Firstly because it stopped the UK fighting for its own interests within the EU whereas other countries would only support trade deals when they benefitted themselves or received appropriate compensation.
Secondly because the yearning for 'lucrative trade deals' was an aspect which led to various Conservatives becoming Leavers - though nobody in their right mind should want the likes of Liam Fox actually negotiating any trade deals.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
Interesting question: If Republican-controlled state legislatures ignored the results of their state elections and sent electors to vote for Trump in the Electoral College, which nations would recognise Trump as President? Obviously Russia would. But France, Germany, Canada, UK?
EDIT: PS It's not going to happen.
Of course it isn't, as it would take the US to near civil war, it is only a few hotheads even suggesting it
You mean, like folk suggesting invading Scotland or Spain?
No I do not mean that, defence of British territory in Gibraltar from a Spanish invasion would not be a civil war for starters and Scotland is less than a 10th of the UK population, the last US civil war split the entire southern US against the northern US in a similar way to this election has largely split the southern and border and plains state Trump voting US from the Northern and Western US
So Northern Ireland wasn't a civil war?
Within Northern Ireland arguably yes not within the wider UK
You might want to talk to folk in London. Or Manchester. Or Warrington. Or Shrewsbury. Or Yorkshire. Or St Albans. Or Birmingham. Or Glasgow.
Of those killed in the Troubles only 125 were in England but 1541 were killed in Belfast, 477 in Armagh and 340 in Tyrone and 243 in Down and 227 in Derry and 209 in Antrim.
Yet England has a population over 20 times that of Northern Ireland, as I said it was a civil war arguably within Northern Ireland, not within mainland GB, apart from the odd terrorist attack here but not launched by GB residents
Rather more than a few of those killed in NI were from England, Wales, and Scotland.
The vast majority of those killed in NI lived permanently in NI, the fact some of their ancestors may have migrated there from Scotland in the 17th century does not change that and British troops killed in Northern Ireland were on service during the civil war in Northern Ireland they were not with a few exceptions killed in mainland GB.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
That isn't a realistic scenario as the legal cases would run the other way, requiring the certification of votes in those states in the absence of evidence of widespread fraud. These cases would certainly succeed.
Secondly, this only conceivably works where the state has unified GOP governance, like Georgia. But, in that case, THEY are the ones running the election so they'd be saying their own process was fraudulant.
Additionally, you'd have to be looking at Republican majorities in state legislatures blocking certification the result in their own state, disenfranchising the majority of their own voters (and a fair number of Republican voters too - even if a majority of Republicans supported it, a sizable minority have not drunk the Kool Aid). That'd be very, very, very "brave".
Again, utterly unrealistic moving of divisions that don't exist around a map in the bunker.
Over the last month Mr Ed has hypothesised various theories explaining how Trump is going to win. One by one they have all fallen by the wayside. This one will go the same way.
So first of all you are right OllyT, I thought that Trump would win the election and I was wrong. I also said that there were a number of reasons why Biden wouldn’t get the landslide many predicted on here, and on that I was right.
(By the way, one of the reasons I said Trump would win was that the Hispanics didn’t see themselves as either one bloc or as part of the big happy “People of Colour” family that many on here did. Who was right there?)
I am not predicting this is how Trump is going to win. If he is “winning” this way, it’s obviously not a win. What I am saying is that, given what is happening at the moment, you need to take this as a possibility. We are looking at this from a UK perspective.
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
The one weakness in the UK process is the risk of a whole bundle going into the wrong pile, sometimes where the top paper doesn't match those underneath. This is why recounts can swing significantly and why a bundle check is often the first step where a result is close-ish. The US process is laborious but the chances of a whole load of votes being misattributed is lower.
Edit/ ex the above mentioned software glitch, I guess!
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
The one weakness in the UK process is the risk of a whole bundle going into the wrong pile, sometimes where the top paper doesn't match those underneath. This is why recounts can swing significantly and why a bundle check is often the first step where a result is close-ish. The US process is laborious but the chances of a whole load of votes being misattributed is lower.
Edit/ ex the above mentioned software glitch, I guess!
Yes to be fair i agree that it's not as simple as looking at the size of the overall election and scaling up on overall potential for overall margin of error, except where there is systemic error, so i was overegging that a bit.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
I agree, and there lies the problem with Brexit. Policy is being driven by free traders, when probably the significant majority of Leave voters favour protectionism and enhancement of workers protections. It is not possible to ride both horses much longer.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
One thing which baffles me is the automatic assumption that many have that more free trade is always a good thing.
I suspect that some think of free trade as a sort of City trading middle man activity rather than the people who add value at either end by actually producing useful goods or services.
The unquestioning support for ever more free trade was I think one of the reasons for Brexit.
Firstly because it stopped the UK fighting for its own interests within the EU whereas other countries would only support trade deals when they benefitted themselves or received appropriate compensation.
Secondly because the yearning for 'lucrative trade deals' was an aspect which led to various Conservatives becoming Leavers - though nobody in their right mind should want the likes of Liam Fox actually negotiating any trade deals.
This is a very relevant and interesting area.
A Brexit-supporter I spoke to a few years ago was absolutely baffled when I told him it was actually the Cameron government that had stopped the EU protecting British steel ; he was sure it was the other way round, and I even got the impression it had been one of the reasons why he voted Brexit.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
The one weakness in the UK process is the risk of a whole bundle going into the wrong pile, sometimes where the top paper doesn't match those underneath. This is why recounts can swing significantly and why a bundle check is often the first step where a result is close-ish. The US process is laborious but the chances of a whole load of votes being misattributed is lower.
Edit/ ex the above mentioned software glitch, I guess!
Well, yes, the software glitch is a slight issue!!!!
(con) When we hear about how recounts only change things by 10s or 100s of votes that is in large part because of the time they take to count. If they were more slapdash and the belief that votes could be out by 1000s came about (bear in mind these are elections with millions of votes cast) then that would create great problems for trust in their electoral processes at every level (compare with the UK - we see recounts changing results by hundreds on the back of elections with only 10s of thousands of votes cast - American election officials would be fired if similar things happened there).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
The one weakness in the UK process is the risk of a whole bundle going into the wrong pile, sometimes where the top paper doesn't match those underneath. This is why recounts can swing significantly and why a bundle check is often the first step where a result is close-ish. The US process is laborious but the chances of a whole load of votes being misattributed is lower.
Edit/ ex the above mentioned software glitch, I guess!
Well, yes, the software glitch is a slight issue!!!!
Are they using those dodgy voting machines? Looks to me as if they're back to hand voting and counting.
Anyone have a feel about how NC will wind up? I am still looking to have called 49/50, rather than 48 in my eve of poll prediction. Kicking myself about FL, but didn't see it as possible with GA going Dem simultaneously.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
I too knew one of my great-grandmothers. She was not quite that old, but she voted in the first UK election that allowed women the franchise.
I peed on my great grandmother (I was only 6 months old at the time and having my nappy changed I hasten to add), no memory of it unfortunately. Family legend says she chuckled approvingly.
Thinking about it, her grandparents would have been Trump's great great grandparents, I think.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Up to s point Lord Copper. You are correct that the Constitution says that the state legislatures decide how the Electors are chosen, but that does not necessarily mean the state legislature makes the final call on which Electors get seated. Rather the legislature makes the law that says how the state fulfills its duty to appoint Electors.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the Republican state senate majority leader has already pointed out that state law, as passed by the legislature, says that Penna.’s Electors are themselves elected by popular vote.
He has further stated that he will not countenance any legislative attempt to change that. In any case, while the legislature could enact a different law tomorrow, it could only apply from the next Presidential election. The US Constitution specifically bans state legislatures (and Congress) from passing ex post facto laws.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
The legitimate question is, why were both candidates so bad?
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
I too knew one of my great-grandmothers. She was not quite that old, but she voted in the first UK election that allowed women the franchise.
I peed on my great grandmother (I was only 6 months old at the time and having my nappy changed I hasten to add), no memory of it unfortunately. Family legend says she chuckled approvingly.
Thinking about it, her grandparents would have been Trump's great great grandparents, I think.
So the family tradition you share is to piss on people.
You on your great grandmother, him on the whole planet.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
The legitimate question is, why were both candidates so bad?
Trump was elected as a 'sod you' to the DC establishment, Biden was picked solely to defeat Trump, both did the jobs they were selected to do
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Up to s point Lord Copper. You are correct that the Constitution says that the state legislatures decide how the Electors are chosen, but that does not necessarily mean the state legislature makes the final call on which Electors get seated. Rather the legislature makes the law that says how the state fulfills its duty to appoint Electors.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the Republican state senate majority leader has already pointed out that state law, as passed by the legislature, says that Penna.’s Electors are themselves elected by popular vote.
He has further stated that he will not countenance any legislative attempt to change that. In any case, while the legislature could enact a different law tomorrow, it could only apply from the next Presidential election. The US Constitution specifically bans state legislatures (and Congress) from passing ex post facto laws.
Correct Sir, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that as well that, in practice, the legislatures don’t have carte blanche power and that they certainly shouldn’t be changing their state election laws after Election Day. The point was that, if things got really nasty, and the RNC really decided to go for things (which is another matter), this could come into play.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
The only "legitimate question" I have about Michigan in 2016 was how 70,000 ballots from Detroit voted on down ticket races but not the Presidential.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
I too knew one of my great-grandmothers. She was not quite that old, but she voted in the first UK election that allowed women the franchise.
I peed on my great grandmother (I was only 6 months old at the time and having my nappy changed I hasten to add), no memory of it unfortunately. Family legend says she chuckled approvingly.
Thinking about it, her grandparents would have been Trump's great great grandparents, I think.
So the family tradition you share is to piss on people.
You on your great grandmother, him on the whole planet.
(No offence intended!)
None taken. I'm greatly looking forward to the world pissing on that particular member of the family in multiple and varied ways.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
Sure. He won. In his own head. So why should he accept a fake result?
The question is for the people around him. With respect to the spineless scum that represents the GOP in Congress they don't really matter. They can utterly disown him and he still remains as President with Presidential powers in situ in the White House.
What matters is Pence. Whomever is SecState, SecTreas etc at the moment. They can invoke the 25th and remove him. Or they can continue to defend his legitimacy and remove their own. So for Pence is he going down with the ship or is he interested in political life after the 45th?
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I can't see any of his reactions are helping him long term. Who is going to advertise on Trump tv? It is going to be akin to Infowars, flogging overpriced supplements and survival packs.
If he had said its very close and then gone with a bit of grace, 6 months down the line, Trump tv or trump on fox would be going great guns as 5 nights a week he gets to criticize sleepy joe.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
You could be right (a part of me hopes you are - stock up on the popcorn!) but such a move would surely split the GOP badly, to the benefit of Biden / Harris.
Btw, it is by no means sure imo that Biden will step down for 2024. I suspect he will see how his health and popularity are faring.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
The only "legitimate question" I have about Michigan in 2016 was how 70,000 ballots from Detroit voted on down ticket races but not the Presidential.
Well Michigan did have a Republican secretary of state at the time, so should probably ask her.
Honestly, we've got a Republican president openly attempting a coup, and people on here are posting crap saying "the fact Michigan didn't have a recount 4 years ago is evidence of something or other" . Ridiculous.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I can't see any of his reactions are helping him long term. Who is going to advertise on Trump tv? It is going to be akin to Infowars, flogging overpriced supplements and survival packs.
If he had said its very close and then gone with a bit of grace, 6 months down the line, Trump tv or trump on fox would be going great guns as 5 nights a week he gets to criticize sleepy joe.
An advertising model would be difficult because many advertisers would not want to be seen on the channel. I think a subscription style service is more possible whether that is video based (streaming etc) or audio (radio / podcasts).
I don’t think going with grace helps him funnily enough. His reputation is to fight and fight dirty if required. His supporters see him as the embodiment of the Churchill phrase of we sleep easy at night because rough men are prepared to do the dirty work (not the exact phrase but you know what I mean)
Another thing. If Trump had gone with grace and then twitter, youtube etc try to unperson him, it would look pure political. Now, they will be able to kick him, as a man who keeps trying to spread false claims about elections and is a danger to civil society.
His social media presence is a big draw for those that would want to do business in the future. No twitter, and especially youtube, like Alex Jones, all those big bucks being made from able to get millions of eyeballs every day.
This reaction is if nothing else a terrible business move.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
You could be right (a part of me hopes you are - stock up on the popcorn!) but such a move would surely split the GOP badly, to the benefit of Biden / Harris.
Btw, it is by no means sure imo that Biden will step down for 2024. I suspect he will see how his health and popularity are faring.
I think you are correct on last part. Although I seem to recall Biden has said he will be only one term which will make it a little awkward.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
Margaret Thatcher and dividing society.
Controversial!
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
The first rule of Downing Street steps' speeches on taking office is that they set out the precise opposite of how things will turn out. Especially with incoming Tory PMs.
Thatcher was exceptional in this, though. She was explicitly laying claim to resolving conflicts ; whatever one might say about her, that wasn't her legacy.
Yes it was. Do you not know about the industrial strife she ended?
Freezing industrial strife is not the same as ending social conflict or polarisation, however ; let alone exacerbating it.
It may or may not have been intended that way - but the no-strike-arbitration agreements that have become common since then have proved enormously successful.
That's true, but it hasn't resolved underlying tensions, conflicts and inequalities. Brexit was, partly, the result of these unresolved problems.
It resolved the tensions etc *inside* the workplace. Which was the intent of the no-strike agreements.
The external issues are separate - and resolving them will take a hard look at the contradiction inherent in the globalisation consensus.
I don't agree there. I would say the tensions inside reflected the tensions outside, exacerbated in Britain's case by a still-Victorian class atmosphere in the 1970s, which sometimes pitted wilfully destructive union leaders against managers whose unconsultative approach, compared to the rest of our neighbours in northern europe, often bordered on the feudal. Thatcher didn't resolve this historical conflict in any substantial way at all, I wouldn't say, but just temporarily froze it on the side of the employers and management.
In the long-term effect, Piketty and others have made a good argument that the bargaining power of labour was in fact reduced excessively, in a way that has actually been detrimental to post-Thatcherite and post-Reaganite capitalism itself.
It's a little hard to believe the main impact on Western worker bargaining power was changes to union laws, as opposed to the addition of 500 million Chinese workers to the modern industrial economy in the space of a decade or two.
Those aren't the kind of arguments Piiketty and others are making, to be fair. They partly suggest that excessive weakening of labour bargaining power in the United States and UK has precipitated specific kinds of dysfunctions in the economy domestically too.
Undeniably the postwar decades of organised labour coincide with greater social equality, that went into reverse in more recent decades.
I see this decline as part of the reason that so many blue collar workers have shifted to the Right wing Populists.
To be more specific, many blue collar workers have shifted towards those promising to reverse the trends towards unconstrained free trade and open labour markets that they associated with a weakening in their bargaining power. The only reason that right wing populists have been able to exploit their concerns is because parties of the left and centre chose to ignore those trends and their effects.
I agree, and there lies the problem with Brexit. Policy is being driven by free traders, when probably the significant majority of Leave voters favour protectionism and enhancement of workers protections. It is not possible to ride both horses much longer.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
One thing which baffles me is the automatic assumption that many have that more free trade is always a good thing.
I suspect that some think of free trade as a sort of City trading middle man activity rather than the people who add value at either end by actually producing useful goods or services.
The unquestioning support for ever more free trade was I think one of the reasons for Brexit.
Firstly because it stopped the UK fighting for its own interests within the EU whereas other countries would only support trade deals when they benefitted themselves or received appropriate compensation.
Secondly because the yearning for 'lucrative trade deals' was an aspect which led to various Conservatives becoming Leavers - though nobody in their right mind should want the likes of Liam Fox actually negotiating any trade deals.
Rich countries have probably reached a point at which more free trade can only mean very marginal gains to their people. And free trade in services would mean restrictions on sovereignty that many people would find quite unacceptable.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Last Christmas I went to visit an old friend who I knew well when I was small as she helped look after me. Her oldest grandchild is now a grandmother.
I clearly remember my great grandmother. I went to her 90th birthday party in 1950. She was born before the American Civil War.
I too knew one of my great-grandmothers. She was not quite that old, but she voted in the first UK election that allowed women the franchise.
I peed on my great grandmother (I was only 6 months old at the time and having my nappy changed I hasten to add), no memory of it unfortunately. Family legend says she chuckled approvingly.
Thinking about it, her grandparents would have been Trump's great great grandparents, I think.
So the family tradition you share is to piss on people.
You on your great grandmother, him on the whole planet.
(No offence intended!)
None taken. I'm greatly looking forward to the world pissing on that particular member of the family in multiple and varied ways.
Somehow you've given the pee pee tape some further credence.
In a future documentary 'The Trump family history of pee peeing on other people is a long established tradition.'
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Up to s point Lord Copper. You are correct that the Constitution says that the state legislatures decide how the Electors are chosen, but that does not necessarily mean the state legislature makes the final call on which Electors get seated. Rather the legislature makes the law that says how the state fulfills its duty to appoint Electors.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the Republican state senate majority leader has already pointed out that state law, as passed by the legislature, says that Penna.’s Electors are themselves elected by popular vote.
He has further stated that he will not countenance any legislative attempt to change that. In any case, while the legislature could enact a different law tomorrow, it could only apply from the next Presidential election. The US Constitution specifically bans state legislatures (and Congress) from passing ex post facto laws.
Correct Sir, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that as well that, in practice, the legislatures don’t have carte blanche power and that they certainly shouldn’t be changing their state election laws after Election Day. The point was that, if things got really nasty, and the RNC really decided to go for things (which is another matter), this could come into play.
I think this is in play only as part of the struggle for control of the GOP.
Normally when a party loses the post-election struggle would be something like, "we lost because we didn't promise x for voters y," where x is something that person z has always advocated.
This time it's, "if other Republicans were more loyal to Trump we could have defeated the Democrat coup that has stolen the White House."
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
I posted on here a few days back that don’t be surprised if the Republicans fund a few thousand extra votes in Georgia to push Perdue (and Trump) over the line. This is not a partisan issue, American politics at the local / state level is meant to protect the incumbents and therefore all means, fair and foul, sometimes come into consideration on both sides.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I pretty much agree with this, if Trump has to leave (and at some point he will) he is sure as hell going to choose the manner of his leaving,,,publicly and protesting to the last
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Given how desperate Trump was to find any electoral fraud, funny how his commission headed by Pence couldn't find any.
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
I posted on here a few days back that don’t be surprised if the Republicans fund a few thousand extra votes in Georgia to push Perdue (and Trump) over the line. This is not a partisan issue, American politics at the local / state level is meant to protect the incumbents and therefore all means, fair and foul, sometimes come into consideration on both sides.
I am not entirely sure you aren't making some of this stuff up now.
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I pretty much agree with this, if Trump has to leave (and at some point he will) he is sure as hell going to choose the manner of his leaving,,,publicly and protesting to the last
He could completely overshadow the inauguration by the manner of his leaving the White House. Would seem to be an irresistible option for him.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Up to s point Lord Copper. You are correct that the Constitution says that the state legislatures decide how the Electors are chosen, but that does not necessarily mean the state legislature makes the final call on which Electors get seated. Rather the legislature makes the law that says how the state fulfills its duty to appoint Electors.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the Republican state senate majority leader has already pointed out that state law, as passed by the legislature, says that Penna.’s Electors are themselves elected by popular vote.
He has further stated that he will not countenance any legislative attempt to change that. In any case, while the legislature could enact a different law tomorrow, it could only apply from the next Presidential election. The US Constitution specifically bans state legislatures (and Congress) from passing ex post facto laws.
Correct Sir, the Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that as well that, in practice, the legislatures don’t have carte blanche power and that they certainly shouldn’t be changing their state election laws after Election Day. The point was that, if things got really nasty, and the RNC really decided to go for things (which is another matter), this could come into play.
I think this is in play only as part of the struggle for control of the GOP.
Normally when a party loses the post-election struggle would be something like, "we lost because we didn't promise x for voters y," where x is something that person z has always advocated.
This time it's, "if other Republicans were more loyal to Trump we could have defeated the Democrat coup that has stolen the White House."
The one thing is that there is a stream of thought in the Republican camp (and, as I’ve mentioned before, not just Trumpsters but Establishment types) that believes the Democrats use inner city vote padding to win swing states. What I described in Detroit in 2016 actually also happened in 2012 re actual voters more than registered voters but Romney decided not to raise the issue.
Trump’s camp definitely want to go aggressive. How long that lasts who knows.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Undemocratic? Yes (but.....)"???????
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
Some potentially very good news on the COVID (and SARS & MERS???) front.
The S2 sub-unit of the spike protein (S1 helps with viral attachment to the human cell, S2 with cell entry of the virion) of the common cold human coronaviruses varies very little with that of the COVID-causing virus, SARS-CoV-2. In adults, a few have antibody cross-reactivity between antibodies to those coronavirus common colds and SARS-CoV-2, but this is markedly increased (as high as 50%) in children ages 1-16. The thought is that this may stop neither infection nor infectivity in these children, but does help explain why they are highly unlikely to progress to severe forms of the disease.
This has two implications: - those with this cross-reactivity are potentially protected against the disease, if not the infection; and - vaccines targeting the S2 sub-unit rather than the S1 sub-unit, might have broader benefit than just against COVID.
Another thing. If Trump had gone with grace and then twitter, youtube etc try to unperson him, it would look pure political. Now, they will be able to kick him, as a man who keeps trying to spread false claims about elections and is a danger to civil society.
His social media presence is a big draw for those that would want to do business in the future. No twitter, and especially youtube, like Alex Jones, all those big bucks being made from able to get millions of eyeballs every day.
This reaction is if nothing else a terrible business move.
Interviewee after interview on Fox news are openly calling Fox news themselves traitors. This is not random or merely a petulant complaint but a plan to make money through Trump TV.
Glacial vote-counting; long-periods of no updates from the uncalled states, puntucated by releases of 5k vote numbers; everything shutting down overnight; etc.
538's 'live' blog last posted 8 hours ago... though to be fair to them there's nothing to blog is there?
Another thing. If Trump had gone with grace and then twitter, youtube etc try to unperson him, it would look pure political. Now, they will be able to kick him, as a man who keeps trying to spread false claims about elections and is a danger to civil society.
His social media presence is a big draw for those that would want to do business in the future. No twitter, and especially youtube, like Alex Jones, all those big bucks being made from able to get millions of eyeballs every day.
This reaction is if nothing else a terrible business move.
Interviewee after interview on Fox news are openly calling Fox news themselves traitors. This is not random or merely a petulant complaint but a plan to make money through Trump TV.
And dumb....look at the likes of bill o reilly or Glenn Beck after they got the boot from big news networks. The blaze is constantly struggling for money.
Trump could have a cushy prime time slot on fox, some reality show, etc.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Undemocratic? Yes (but.....)"???????
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
I’ll say it again. Go back, look at what happened in Detroit in 2016, and see why Hillary didn’t ask for a recount in Michigan.
I’ve condemned it unequivocally and I’ve condemned it on both sides. As I said to @kamski, I expect the Republicans will try the same trick in Georgia.
It might also help the Democrats if they complied with court orders round poll observers in PA. But hey no doubt you’ll come up with some reasoning why that is different and not on the same level.
Glacial vote-counting; long-periods of no updates from the uncalled states, puntucated by releases of 5k vote numbers; everything shutting down overnight; etc.
538's 'live' blog last posted 8 hours ago... though to be fair to them there's nothing to blog is there?
The underpaid workers and volunteers at the counts definitely have a work ethic or they wouldn't be there.
The systems just aren't optimized to be fast, they don't need to be when they're stuck with a 3 month transition however fast they count.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Legitimate questions" my arse.
The only legitimate questions I see are around the outrageous voter suppression by Republicans.
Plus I suspect republican majority state legislatures are quite happy to be in power, and Trump no longer to be president. I realise the republican party are basically a criminal organisation - and I'm glad you seem to be admitting this now, but I don't think it's a realistic option, just a fantasy in Trump's head.
I posted on here yesterday the key reason why HRC didn’t do a recount in Michigan in 2016 even though she was a few thousand behind was that a large number of precincts in Detroit had posted voter numbers that were in excess of their registered voters, and Michigan state law doesn’t allow precincts to be included in a recount where that happens. The explanation given was that a number of the ballot machines failed on the day and the feeders they fed the votes into erroneously duplicated a number of ballots.
Nothing was investigated further becauSe it didn’t matter to the final results but there were a number of obvious questions around that not least why election feeding machines, which should have been tested rigorously by the manufacturer before the distributors to cope with high volumes and election style processing, started to malfunction on the day.
There is a reason why so many American shows feature corrupt local politicians and why so many local politicians in the States have gone to jail for fraud etc
This doesn't make sense - re: no recount in 2016. It's not that certain votes would be excluded from the recount, and her vote would therefore go down (obviously - otherwise had she won by a few thousand then Trump could have had a recount and won the race!). It's just that the numbers for those counties wouldn't change. So a recount wouldn't have disadvantaged her if it had happened (which i think is what you are implying - apologies if wrong).
Hi Alex, the issue is that the whole precinct’s votes are excluded from a recount if this occurs so her overall numbers would have fallen given these were heavily Democrat wards. So it’s very unlikely she would have won while raising questions over what had happened.
Hi Mr Ed - I think you must be wrong - you are misunderstanding what "excluded from the recount" means. It means "won't be counted again" ie. "won't be changed". It doesn't mean "the count will be redone, as if those votes didn't exist". This is obvious if you think about it for a brief moment.
Any other interpretation (ie. yours) would mean that there would be no way that a recount could give the same result as a count. If a recount isn't expected to give the same result, then the original results couldn't be certified as accurate. You are suggesting that Hillary's vote would have gone down (because of where the votes with the issue were located ie. Hillary voting counties). But supposing she had WON the state! The implication would be that Trump could have demanded a recount knowing that her vote would go down and therefore he would likely win. Clearly there is no way that this could be correct and the law cannot mean what you think it means.
Some potentially very good news on the COVID (and SARS & MERS???) front.
The S2 sub-unit of the spike protein (S1 helps with viral attachment to the human cell, S2 with cell entry of the virion) of the common cold human coronaviruses varies very little with that of the COVID-causing virus, SARS-CoV-2. In adults, a few have antibody cross-reactivity between antibodies to those coronavirus common colds and SARS-CoV-2, but this is markedly increased (as high as 50%) in children ages 1-16. The thought is that this may stop neither infection nor infectivity in these children, but does help explain why they are highly unlikely to progress to severe forms of the disease.
This has two implications: - those with this cross-reactivity are potentially protected against the disease, if not the infection; and - vaccines targeting the S2 sub-unit rather than the S1 sub-unit, might have broader benefit than just against COVID.
This was the same Ed Conway who put out a 7-day moving average graph of Sweden corona virus cases that missed off 3 days of data thus making it look artificially low?
Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a time around 3:00am GMT on Wednesday when people were seriously wondering if Biden would hold VA?
I think it was just before I went to bed 'knowing' that Trump had somehow won again.
Yes, I did (I’ll get in there before others). In my defence, John King on CNN raised it several times that he was getting texts from both Democrats and Republicans as to why Trump (at the time) had such a big lead
Does anybody have any idea when this will be over? Or will I be discussing mail in ballots in Chatham County, GA over my vegan Xmas dinner?
Depending on family interests it could be over in the next day or so but you would still want to discuss it over Xmas dinner. Do you not normally discuss electoral minutiae and arcana around the Xmas table?
@MrEd - just pulling your leg mate. I really liked your ‘I am the anti tipster’ post yesterday.
Haha, don’t worry @Anabobazina im happy to have my leg pulled and thanks for that. I suspect my “could VA turn Trump” is going to come up when I comment on the 2024 GE
Trump will gamble that being seen on prime time TV to be actually dragged from the WH by secret service will only help his post-presidency career as a martyr for Trumpism and as a TV channel promoter.
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I pretty much agree with this, if Trump has to leave (and at some point he will) he is sure as hell going to choose the manner of his leaving,,,publicly and protesting to the last
He could completely overshadow the inauguration by the manner of his leaving the White House. Would seem to be an irresistible option for him.
Presumably the "escorting" off the premise would have to be timed to the moment that he is no longer president which I guess is noon on the day that the new one is publically sworn in.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Undemocratic? Yes (but.....)"???????
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
PS @Wulfrun_Phil its not only Trumpsters who are keen to claim vote rigging
If this continues then the infection peak will be less than 30% of that in the spring.
Now we just have to worry minky mutant covid is now being found across the world...
Shock horror ... a degree of herd immunity?
The 2016 report on pandemic preparedness recommended higher NHS funding. Lack, especially of staff, may explain why the NHS can't cope with even a 5-10% overload and we have virtual house arrest.
Hunt has questions to answer as he was Health Secretary in 2016. But he's now Chair of the Health Committee ... hmm, how convenient.
@MrEd - just pulling your leg mate. I really liked your ‘I am the anti tipster’ post yesterday.
Haha, don’t worry @Anabobazina im happy to have my leg pulled and thanks for that. I suspect my “could VA turn Trump” is going to come up when I comment on the 2024 GE
The fun thing about this race was that everyone was right about some of it and wrong about some of it, you'd have needed to listen to quite a diverse mix of mutually antagonistic shitposters to put all the pieces together.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Undemocratic? Yes (but.....)"???????
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
I’ll say it again. Go back, look at what happened in Detroit in 2016, and see why Hillary didn’t ask for a recount in Michigan.
I’ve condemned it unequivocally and I’ve condemned it on both sides. As I said to @kamski, I expect the Republicans will try the same trick in Georgia.
It might also help the Democrats if they complied with court orders round poll observers in PA. But hey no doubt you’ll come up with some reasoning why that is different and not on the same level.
Have you heard of "on the day registration", friend?
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
"Undemocratic? Yes (but.....)"???????
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
I’ll say it again. Go back, look at what happened in Detroit in 2016, and see why Hillary didn’t ask for a recount in Michigan.
I’ve condemned it unequivocally and I’ve condemned it on both sides. As I said to @kamski, I expect the Republicans will try the same trick in Georgia.
It might also help the Democrats if they complied with court orders round poll observers in PA. But hey no doubt you’ll come up with some reasoning why that is different and not on the same level.
Have you heard of "on the day registration", friend?
I have indeed Sir. But that wasn’t the explanation used at the time:
@MrEd - just pulling your leg mate. I really liked your ‘I am the anti tipster’ post yesterday.
Haha, don’t worry @Anabobazina im happy to have my leg pulled and thanks for that. I suspect my “could VA turn Trump” is going to come up when I comment on the 2024 GE
The fun thing about this race was that everyone was right about some of it and wrong about some of it, you'd have needed to listen to quite a diverse mix of mutually antagonistic shitposters to put all the pieces together.
MrEd had a near clean sweep of being absolutely wrong, but even he got some things right!!
@MrEd - just pulling your leg mate. I really liked your ‘I am the anti tipster’ post yesterday.
Haha, don’t worry @Anabobazina im happy to have my leg pulled and thanks for that. I suspect my “could VA turn Trump” is going to come up when I comment on the 2024 GE
The fun thing about this race was that everyone was right about some of it and wrong about some of it, you'd have needed to listen to quite a diverse mix of mutually antagonistic shitposters to put all the pieces together.
It’s very true. If you had taken one camp, you would have lost a lot of money. To repeat ad nausea, Trump at 45pc plus of the vote at 10/11 was great value
Comments
State of play.
Georgia - Biden leads 7248
Nevada - Biden leads 22,657
Arizona - Biden leads 29,861
Pennsylvania - Biden leads 28,833
Big batch of results expected to be released in Pennsylvania at 0900 which are expected to extend Biden’s lead.
Penn alone gets Biden past 270
- Woke
- Hand-wringer
- Latte-sipper
- Trot
- Antifa/BLM
What they need, imo, is a down to earth, working class man or woman from the rust belt who is straight talking and can focus on what matters to the typical blue collar American.
Basically, a younger version of Biden.
Not just a UK problem either, just as true of the Midwest industrial belt.
- In most countries any delay in election counting delays the transfer of power. This is not the case in America - or at least not in a legal sense.
- Elections in most countries are not governed quite so tightly and overseen to the same extent by the courts. Very rarely do election issues go to the courts, whereas in the US it is routine. They need to get it right, because everything is challengeable.
- Almost every level of US governance and legal processes are influenced by the ballot box, and at every level it really matters in a way which perhaps it doesn't (or isn't seen to) in many other countries. We are all waiting for the Presidential votes. But there are hugely important Senate and House races that they are counting at the same time.
- The tradition in American elections is that races are "called" (on the basis of statistical probability) in advance of final votes being tallied. Whilst "calls" have no official status there is usually no time pressure on the counting process once calls have been made. The frustration is in large part because of the lack of calls from the networks. And i think the networks are being ultra careful this time, far more than they would have been in the past. The election officials are just working at their normal timetables in accordance with their legal obligations.
The upshot of the above (and other) issues is that in most countries the balance between expediency and accuracy is very different in most countries compared to the US. In the UK for example, as long as we know the winner we really don't care that much if they won by 1,000 or 2,000 votes. Outside of the possibility of fraud, America really do try to get things right to the tiniest detail. To the extent that once they get down to the last few thousand votes, they really do take a long time to count. That is the nature of the last few ballots to be counted (provisional ballots etc).
So everyone looking from outside is frustrated and subjecting the process to ridicule. But i suspect many Americans see the slowness of the process as evidence of the mantra that they have a responsibility that every voter has the right to have their vote counted and counted accurately. The irony is that one side is actively undermining this and trying to broadcast a message to the world that America is no better than a banana republic. How ironic when Trump expresses such admiration for the likes of Russia and North Korea and how little they are impeded by the inconvenience of things like elections.
I wonder whether the first trans President will be able to claim the position of first female President?
ie you have none.
You are almost as shameless as the gangsters you are happy to support.
A while back, the people behind the Raspberry PI computer wanted the tariffs on import of electronics change. The situation was that importing finished devices was much cheaper than importing components. They wanted a level playing field - equal tariffs on components and finished items.
They were told that the Foreign Office would veto any such changes. Because it would upset the Chinese.
I suspect that some think of free trade as a sort of City trading middle man activity rather than the people who add value at either end by actually producing useful goods or services.
The unquestioning support for ever more free trade was I think one of the reasons for Brexit.
Firstly because it stopped the UK fighting for its own interests within the EU whereas other countries would only support trade deals when they benefitted themselves or received appropriate compensation.
Secondly because the yearning for 'lucrative trade deals' was an aspect which led to various Conservatives becoming Leavers - though nobody in their right mind should want the likes of Liam Fox actually negotiating any trade deals.
(By the way, one of the reasons I said Trump would win was that the Hispanics didn’t see themselves as either one bloc or as part of the big happy “People of Colour” family that many on here did. Who was right there?)
I am not predicting this is how Trump is going to win. If he is “winning” this way, it’s obviously not a win. What I am saying is that, given what is happening at the moment, you need to take this as a possibility. We are looking at this from a UK perspective.
Edit/ ex the above mentioned software glitch, I guess!
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
If this continues then the infection peak will be less than 30% of that in the spring.
A Brexit-supporter I spoke to a few years ago was absolutely baffled when I told him it was actually the Cameron government that had stopped the EU protecting British steel ; he was sure it was the other way round, and I even got the impression it had been one of the reasons why he voted Brexit.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1323364615498203136?s=19
But what are your "legitimate questions" (weasel words that always ring alarm bells) about 2020?
Thinking about it, her grandparents would have been Trump's great great grandparents, I think.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the Republican state senate majority leader has already pointed out that state law, as passed by the legislature, says that Penna.’s Electors are themselves elected by popular vote.
He has further stated that he will not countenance any legislative attempt to change that. In any case, while the legislature could enact a different law tomorrow, it could only apply from the next Presidential election. The US Constitution specifically bans state legislatures (and Congress) from passing ex post facto laws.
You on your great grandmother, him on the whole planet.
(No offence intended!)
Might even help in 2024 rerun or Ivanka run.
Thoughts?
I'm greatly looking forward to the world pissing on that particular member of the family in multiple and varied ways.
The question is for the people around him. With respect to the spineless scum that represents the GOP in Congress they don't really matter. They can utterly disown him and he still remains as President with Presidential powers in situ in the White House.
What matters is Pence. Whomever is SecState, SecTreas etc at the moment. They can invoke the 25th and remove him. Or they can continue to defend his legitimacy and remove their own. So for Pence is he going down with the ship or is he interested in political life after the 45th?
If he had said its very close and then gone with a bit of grace, 6 months down the line, Trump tv or trump on fox would be going great guns as 5 nights a week he gets to criticize sleepy joe.
Btw, it is by no means sure imo that Biden will step down for 2024. I suspect he will see how his health and popularity are faring.
Honestly, we've got a Republican president openly attempting a coup, and people on here are posting crap saying "the fact Michigan didn't have a recount 4 years ago is evidence of something or other" . Ridiculous.
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1324820624255127553
I don’t think going with grace helps him funnily enough. His reputation is to fight and fight dirty if required. His supporters see him as the embodiment of the Churchill phrase of we sleep easy at night because rough men are prepared to do the dirty work (not the exact phrase but you know what I mean)
His social media presence is a big draw for those that would want to do business in the future. No twitter, and especially youtube, like Alex Jones, all those big bucks being made from able to get millions of eyeballs every day.
This reaction is if nothing else a terrible business move.
I intend to rewatch the whole of Veep.
In a future documentary 'The Trump family history of pee peeing on other people is a long established tradition.'
Normally when a party loses the post-election struggle would be something like, "we lost because we didn't promise x for voters y," where x is something that person z has always advocated.
This time it's, "if other Republicans were more loyal to Trump we could have defeated the Democrat coup that has stolen the White House."
Correct me if I'm wrong but was there a time around 3:00am GMT on Wednesday when people were seriously wondering if Biden would hold VA?
I think it was just before I went to bed 'knowing' that Trump had somehow won again.
Trump’s camp definitely want to go aggressive. How long that lasts who knows.
The fascist tactics which you can't bring yourself to condemn unequivocally would be on a par with the way the NSDAP put the German constitution to one side in seizing power in the 1932/33 period. Both ignored democratic norms when it suited them.
And in the face of widespread voter suppression, "legitimate questions" my arse. Let's give the most notable example in the state in question. Specifically, Plan A involved using the US Postal Service to deliberately delay ballots, the failure of a Republican legislature to extend voting deadlines in response, and then the efforts by the Republicans to use a packed Supreme Court to overturn a decision allowing those ballots to be counted anyway, no doubt aided by a judge who would have backed the person who pushed her into post just in time to make such a ruling. The irony is that that will all come to nothing, because people got wise to those efforts to defraud their vote such that most took precautions such that the number of votes in question will only sway things by an extra 2,000 or so even further in the Democrats' favour, when they're already likely to be well beyond the 0.5% recount margin in PA without them.
So in response to the risible failure of Plan A, and the absence of anything else to throw into the mix, there's no alternative but to adopt fascist norms and revert to Plan B. Condemn that scenario. Unequivocally.
The S2 sub-unit of the spike protein (S1 helps with viral attachment to the human cell, S2 with cell entry of the virion) of the common cold human coronaviruses varies very little with that of the COVID-causing virus, SARS-CoV-2. In adults, a few have antibody cross-reactivity between antibodies to those coronavirus common colds and SARS-CoV-2, but this is markedly increased (as high as 50%) in children ages 1-16. The thought is that this may stop neither infection nor infectivity in these children, but does help explain why they are highly unlikely to progress to severe forms of the disease.
https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2020-11-06_pre-existing-coronavirus-antibodies-could-help-protect-children-against-new-pandemic-strain?fbclid=IwAR3cCBSwvgJDdascEhvWkc0ytWjWiqRVpmLtuLM3UkbjsGc4I3sO1Se4Z5w
This has two implications:
- those with this cross-reactivity are potentially protected against the disease, if not the infection; and
- vaccines targeting the S2 sub-unit rather than the S1 sub-unit, might have broader benefit than just against COVID.
Glacial vote-counting; long-periods of no updates from the uncalled states, puntucated by releases of 5k vote numbers; everything shutting down overnight; etc.
538's 'live' blog last posted 8 hours ago... though to be fair to them there's nothing to blog is there?
Trump could have a cushy prime time slot on fox, some reality show, etc.
I’ve condemned it unequivocally and I’ve condemned it on both sides. As I said to @kamski, I expect the Republicans will try the same trick in Georgia.
It might also help the Democrats if they complied with court orders round poll observers in PA. But hey no doubt you’ll come up with some reasoning why that is different and not on the same level.
The systems just aren't optimized to be fast, they don't need to be when they're stuck with a 3 month transition however fast they count.
Any other interpretation (ie. yours) would mean that there would be no way that a recount could give the same result as a count. If a recount isn't expected to give the same result, then the original results couldn't be certified as accurate. You are suggesting that Hillary's vote would have gone down (because of where the votes with the issue were located ie. Hillary voting counties). But supposing she had WON the state! The implication would be that Trump could have demanded a recount knowing that her vote would go down and therefore he would likely win. Clearly there is no way that this could be correct and the law cannot mean what you think it means.
Asking for a friend.
@MrEd - just pulling your leg mate. I really liked your ‘I am the anti tipster’ post yesterday.
It's funny!
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CHMC65SJ2yw/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
But maybe there is some other archaic rule.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin
The 2016 report on pandemic preparedness recommended higher NHS funding. Lack, especially of staff, may explain why the NHS can't cope with even a 5-10% overload and we have virtual house arrest.
Hunt has questions to answer as he was Health Secretary in 2016. But he's now Chair of the Health Committee ... hmm, how convenient.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/05/us-election-recount-michigan-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
JackW and OnlyLivingBoy got very very close.