With 98% of the votes counted the Dems looks set to gain both Georgia US Senate seats – politicalbet

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

Obviously people wont recall all positions of others but Philip condemned Trump for months and months. It's not even a muted kind of dislike where you might interpret them as secretly still in favour but hiding it with a 'I dont support trump but'.

Just because someone likes Boris doesn't mean they like Trump.

Spot on. Philip has made very clear his disgust for Trump and Boris is no Trump. I certainly detest Trump. I think he is evil. Boris has qualities and he has flaws as do most people. People have different views about him. I don't think he is competent as a PM, but that is a personal opinion, but I feel very confident to say he is definitely not evil, far from it, what is more I do admire his humour and his ability to speak and write (just not to lead).

There are similarities between Johnson and Trump, in particular the dumbing down of political messaging and the "greatest country" shtick, also the immaturity and laziness, but they are at the same time totally different. In particular -

Trump has no intellect to speak of. Johnson does.
Trump has no vocabulary. Johnson has a big one.
Trump has malevolent intentions. Johnson is merely selfish.
Trump's torso is all blubber. Johnson's is toned and muscly.

So what if Johnson "has a big one".. What's that got to do with Trump's bigly vocabulary?

I do hope Biden mangles the English language. I'm going to miss that about Trump bigly. Although damn all else...)

It's going to take ages for our collective diction to recover from Trump's idiolect, but I'm gonna make a yuge effort and look at it very strongly, and I think you'll be very, very, happy with the results. In fact a lot of people are saying that. Lotta people.

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

Obviously people wont recall all positions of others but Philip condemned Trump for months and months. It's not even a muted kind of dislike where you might interpret them as secretly still in favour but hiding it with a 'I dont support trump but'.

Just because someone likes Boris doesn't mean they like Trump.

Spot on. Philip has made very clear his disgust for Trump and Boris is no Trump. I certainly detest Trump. I think he is evil. Boris has qualities and he has flaws as do most people. People have different views about him. I don't think he is competent as a PM, but that is a personal opinion, but I feel very confident to say he is definitely not evil, far from it, what is more I do admire his humour and his ability to speak and write (just not to lead).

There are similarities between Johnson and Trump, in particular the dumbing down of political messaging and the "greatest country" shtick, also the immaturity and laziness, but they are at the same time totally different. In particular -

Trump has no intellect to speak of. Johnson does.
Trump has no vocabulary. Johnson has a big one.
Trump has malevolent intentions. Johnson is merely selfish.
Trump's torso is all blubber. Johnson's is toned and muscly.

So what if Johnson "has a big one".. What's that got to do with Trump's bigly vocabulary?

I do hope Biden mangles the English language. I'm going to miss that about Trump bigly. Although damn all else...)

Could be fun.
And after Williamson's performance in the Commons today, let no one assume it's dementia

BluestBlue said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:

kinabalu said:

kjh said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

Obviously people wont recall all positions of others but Philip condemned Trump for months and months. It's not even a muted kind of dislike where you might interpret them as secretly still in favour but hiding it with a 'I dont support trump but'.

Just because someone likes Boris doesn't mean they like Trump.

Spot on. Philip has made very clear his disgust for Trump and Boris is no Trump. I certainly detest Trump. I think he is evil. Boris has qualities and he has flaws as do most people. People have different views about him. I don't think he is competent as a PM, but that is a personal opinion, but I feel very confident to say he is definitely not evil, far from it, what is more I do admire his humour and his ability to speak and write (just not to lead).

There are similarities between Johnson and Trump, in particular the dumbing down of political messaging and the "greatest country" shtick, also the immaturity and laziness, but they are at the same time totally different. In particular -

Trump has no intellect to speak of. Johnson does.
Trump has no vocabulary. Johnson has a big one.
Trump has malevolent intentions. Johnson is merely selfish.
Trump's torso is all blubber. Johnson's is toned and muscly.

So what if Johnson "has a big one".. What's that got to do with Trump's bigly vocabulary?

I do hope Biden mangles the English language. I'm going to miss that about Trump bigly. Although damn all else...)

It's going to take ages for our collective diction to recover from Trump's idiolect, but I'm gonna make a yuge effort and look at it very strongly, and I think you'll be very, very, happy with the results. In fact a lot of people are saying that. Lotta people.

Sounds as if it's going to be big - the biggest - and a very beautiful, tremendous thing.

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

glw said:

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1346773590000226304

Yep. This is what I am opining will happen. He is net toxic to the GOP brand and so they need to have this battle and win it. Which they will (both) because the Republican party is bigger than any one man - they're not called the GOP for nothing - and they exist to win power not to service the ego of individuals.

Time to dig up the old strapline. Trump is Toast. Again.

I always find it funny when the left give conservatives advice.

Fair point. Which I have to say since I was making it myself in reverse the other day. But I am very objective for my ilk and the "advice" is sound. New American Dream v MAGA would be no contest in a polarized binary in 24. So the GOP will need to come up with something else. And I think they will.

The day Trump leaves office any incentive due to party loyalty to provide cover or protection for Trump will end. The GOP will be just delighted to leave Trump to fight his own legal battles, without any assistance from the DOJ, Senate, etc.

For the other point of view, there's also the question of whether Trump would even persist with much of an active political career, something that he avoided pursuing for most of 7 decades. The past 4 years and the run up to it are the exception, not the rule. He is a narcissist whose every action is taken to benefit himself. On 20th Jan he will once again revert to holding no elected office. He won't really care about those who would like to jump on his coat tails to benefit themselves, because it is hard to see how he could benefit personally by advancing their prospects. Maybe it would smooth his ego, but not his bank balance, so he won't be minded to put himself out beyond trying to settle a few grudges. I think his attitude also extends to his immediate family, who I think he cares little about other than how they can be used to benefit him personally, so why should he go out of his way to help them either? He may just go much the same way as an ageing mafia boss, and try and back away into semi-retirement, his main concern being to fend off attention from those who wish him harm, especially in his case the feds and state prosecutors.

This is broadly my take. He will not stay a political force - and might not even try once it becomes clear it's not happening.

Keep an eye on his Twitter count. It's 88m now.

Hmm...
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/donald-trump-election-challenge-455233
...But mostly, he is continuing his fight to subvert the election for a Trumpian reason: to keep the attention on himself and give his supporters what they want, according to the people who have spoken with him.

“The point is to still be relevant and still be talked about in the news,” said one of the people. “This is someone who’s been on Page Six of the New York Post for 40 years. He’s beyond embarrassment.”..

Yes, I know this is the case. He is the ultimate attention junkie and it's hard to imagine him not being in the political limelight when he's been seemingly everywhere and all the time since 2015. But let's see how life and the world looks to him from outside the White House. Ann Applebaum reckons he'll keep his grip on the GOP for the foreseeable, so I'm probably wrong, but I have a strong hunch he will quite soon be an ex-wannabe-fascist-phenom.

The SW Wilts Tory MP spotting the loophole in the government's vaccine promise - vaccinations offered is not the same, by any means, as vaccinations delivered

OllyT said:

Floater said:

Jesus - anyone else watching this Freedom Rally live?

Numpties testing the "live free and die" ideology to destruction.

Doubling down on the claims re voting machines........

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

not_on_fire said:

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

Benpointer said:

williamglenn said:

The reason there were ballots is that there was an election.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346818855298072576?s=21

Can't argue with his second sentence.

Here's a question for PBers. How many of the methods used in US elections would you have no problem in being introduced to UK elections? Would you be happy with drop-off mail-in ballot boxes for example, to boost turnout in poorer areas, or electronic voting. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here in that the vast majority of people on here believe there was no fraud and malice, so I'm assuming everyone would be confident that bringing in US practices over here....:)

I think it's the wrong question. There are practices of US elections i dont think are good, but which are perfectly legal in the US. In some cases they've been used for a long time by many states but only challenged because of the outcome this time.

Additionally, even if there is potential for problems with some aspects those need to be proven, and if dozens of legal cases cannot find sufficient grounds to act then it doesn't matter if some practices are not ideal as they haven't been shown to be faulty.

There have been months to prove fraud and other issues. It hasn't changed the results. And whatever flaws exist in their electoral practices in my personal opinion I'd hope they address. But you cannot do that part way through, without sufficient evidence, because the outcome is not liked.

One benefit to the lengthy delays and multiple processes for sign off is testing to destruction fraud claims.

I would agree with that, you can't change the process half way through because you don't like the result. And they also haven't proven fraud, although it's "interesting" how a candidate like Biden drove up enthusiasm in certain US cities but not in others. What I can see is a number of Republican legislatures now becoming aggressive on the votes - PA's state Senate has just blocked a Democratic Senator who won by 69 votes from taking his seat on the grounds his election is being challenged.

Oh given how aggressive some states already were I'm sure itll be off the charts now. And Democrats will want to move quick and there may be wars of escalation.

It's difficult at the Federal level because so much of the issue to do with voting evolves around the states. Even though Biden has control, bringing a Federal law on protecting votes like in the 1960s is going to be a nightmare.

And the 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS will likely rule that many of the changes the Dems would like to make are unconstitutional, infringing states' rights etc.

I think a voting rights act will need careful framing it's essentially Kavanaugh who will be the swing vote on that one. It's tricky, but possible to do.

I say Kav and not the other conservative justices because he's a touch more idiosyncratic than the very strict originalists that Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and ACB are.

Roberts's absolute pants on head decision in Shelby County theoretically makes it really easy to write the law to get the VRA as was back but for some odd reason I suspect we may find the Roberts suddenly finds some other portion suddenly unconstitutional as well.

Get that ruling in the next 2 years and that should be casus belli to add a few new SCOTUS Justices added before the midterms.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

I'd certainly agree with that.

https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1346844506587615232?s=20

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fairliered said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, maybe the P&J is turning into a Nat mouthpiece!

https://twitter.com/pressjournal/status/1346510157681856512?s=20

Following their fishing and farming readership.

A lot of Scottish institutions in recent times have changed their policy of measured disapproval toward the nat agenda to embracing it. At the very least, the SNP looks like the dominant Governing force in Scotland for a long time, and they're increasingly adept at using the levers of power to further their cause. Case of 'lie back and think of Scotland'. Whether it's a wise long term strategy remains to be seen.

Not the media, though. If (and it’s extremely unlikely) the P&J were to be supportive of the SNP, they would be only the second daily newspaper to support them.

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was trying to compile this stat earlier.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1346834407626334209

Split themselves into more states. The sky is the limit, or rather how small the stars will be in the flag

{Texas has entered the chat}

Texas isn't sufficiently Republican to play that game, though.
And if even a small section of your normally reliable vote think you're taking the piss, it could backfire massively.

You also have to consider the costs to states approving their own fragmentation. It's not exactly trivial.

Roger said:

Nigelb said:

Roger said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

Indeed. That's a bizarre attack from Nigel.

Plenty of PB Trumptons linger around, they are easy enough to identify.

Indeed not. Brexiteers all of them. Some because of his strinkingly similar amoral behaviour to Boris some because they think he and Boris can be best friends in a post truth Brexity world.

That's a strinklingly good neologism.

It was wasn't it but just a happy accident I'm afraid! I've recently been working on a photographic book and I entitled a photograh 'Feeding the Geese'. Sounded innocent enough and accurately describes what the girl was doing..........

Next time you misbehave, you're getting a sound strinking.

contrarian said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1346837400576806913?s=20

In all fairness to Hancock, he gave a decent(ish) answer to a very good question from Harper.

Hancock emphatically told Harper that vaccination numbers will not set our country free.

Government figures will.

And government figures can be manipulated.

If vaccination were the answer, the government would be setting out a timetable. They aren't. Why? you tell me.

For god sake man. The numbers are not being manipulated. There is literally no motivation for the government to manipulate them. Do you think they want us in lockdown with the economy in the toilet? Think for once.

IanB2 said:

The SW Wilts Tory MP spotting the loophole in the government's vaccine promise - vaccinations offered is not the same, by any means, as vaccinations delivered

Hes my MP. An ultra loyalist but also a doctor so probably being sharp on the subject.

contrarian said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1346837400576806913?s=20

In all fairness to Hancock, he gave a decent(ish) answer to a very good question from Harper.

Hancock emphatically told Harper that vaccination numbers will not set our country free.

Government figures will.

And government figures can be manipulated.

If vaccination were the answer, the government would be setting out a timetable. They aren't. Why? you tell me.

You tell us why they want to destroy liberty and the economy first.

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

I'd certainly agree with that.

You would agree, then, that the Republicans are nailed on to win in 2024, seeing as a donkey in a red rosette could beat the spectacularly unpopular Kamala Harris, would will presumably be the incumbent and candidate for the democrats by then.

Except of course that won;t be the case.

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

Malmesbury said:

rcs1000 said:

MrEd said:

TimT said:

Does anyone know where to find how Georgia's Military and Overseas Ballots split in the 2020 Presidential? My guess is that it went to Biden by a hair, but I'd like to confirm with real numbers.

What I read somewhere was military for Trump, overseas Biden but can't be 100% sure

Pre the November election, the Military Times did a poll of active service men, and (for the first time ever), they showed the Republican trailing the Democrat.

President Trump made an enormous number of completely unforced errors. Calling people who died for their country "losers" and "suckers" was not smart. Slagging off a man who spent years - and this David Foster Wallace piece on McCain is worth reading - being tortured in a prisoner of war camp, rather than be sent home earlier than people who had been captured earlier, almost certainly hit him in Arizona.

The thing that really pushed them across the line was treatment of the CO of that aircraft carrier, I believe.

Trump really did some stupid things sometimes

(yes, I said that)

I think you mean demented self harming.

Consider - "COVID is a horrible risk. Buy a MAGA mask from my website. Buy lots. Only $25"

He would quite possibly have been re-elected. And made several billion dollars.

It seemed an obvious move. Christ, non trumpets might have worn them when supplies were low.

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

I'd certainly agree with that.

You would agree, then, that the Republicans are nailed on to win in 2024, seeing as a donkey in a red rosette could beat the spectacularly unpopular Kamala Harris, would will presumably be the incumbent and candidate for the democrats by then.

Except of course that won;t be the case.

You think Trump will run again? And win?

(That’s a reference to the ‘donkey in a red rosette’ comment.)

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

not_on_fire said:

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

kle4 said:

MrEd said:

Benpointer said:

williamglenn said:

The reason there were ballots is that there was an election.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1346818855298072576?s=21

Can't argue with his second sentence.

Here's a question for PBers. How many of the methods used in US elections would you have no problem in being introduced to UK elections? Would you be happy with drop-off mail-in ballot boxes for example, to boost turnout in poorer areas, or electronic voting. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here in that the vast majority of people on here believe there was no fraud and malice, so I'm assuming everyone would be confident that bringing in US practices over here....:)

I think it's the wrong question. There are practices of US elections i dont think are good, but which are perfectly legal in the US. In some cases they've been used for a long time by many states but only challenged because of the outcome this time.

Additionally, even if there is potential for problems with some aspects those need to be proven, and if dozens of legal cases cannot find sufficient grounds to act then it doesn't matter if some practices are not ideal as they haven't been shown to be faulty.

There have been months to prove fraud and other issues. It hasn't changed the results. And whatever flaws exist in their electoral practices in my personal opinion I'd hope they address. But you cannot do that part way through, without sufficient evidence, because the outcome is not liked.

One benefit to the lengthy delays and multiple processes for sign off is testing to destruction fraud claims.

I would agree with that, you can't change the process half way through because you don't like the result. And they also haven't proven fraud, although it's "interesting" how a candidate like Biden drove up enthusiasm in certain US cities but not in others. What I can see is a number of Republican legislatures now becoming aggressive on the votes - PA's state Senate has just blocked a Democratic Senator who won by 69 votes from taking his seat on the grounds his election is being challenged.

Oh given how aggressive some states already were I'm sure itll be off the charts now. And Democrats will want to move quick and there may be wars of escalation.

It's difficult at the Federal level because so much of the issue to do with voting evolves around the states. Even though Biden has control, bringing a Federal law on protecting votes like in the 1960s is going to be a nightmare.

And the 6-3 conservative majority on SCOTUS will likely rule that many of the changes the Dems would like to make are unconstitutional, infringing states' rights etc.

I think a voting rights act will need careful framing it's essentially Kavanaugh who will be the swing vote on that one. It's tricky, but possible to do.

I say Kav and not the other conservative justices because he's a touch more idiosyncratic than the very strict originalists that Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and ACB are.

Roberts's absolute pants on head decision in Shelby County theoretically makes it really easy to write the law to get the VRA as was back but for some odd reason I suspect we may find the Roberts suddenly finds some other portion suddenly unconstitutional as well.

Roberts has elevated the finagle to a constitutional principle

kle4 said:

contrarian said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1346837400576806913?s=20

In all fairness to Hancock, he gave a decent(ish) answer to a very good question from Harper.

Hancock emphatically told Harper that vaccination numbers will not set our country free.

Government figures will.

And government figures can be manipulated.

If vaccination were the answer, the government would be setting out a timetable. They aren't. Why? you tell me.

You tell us why they want to destroy liberty and the economy first.

For one reason, because people, whoever they are, get used to enormous power by decree. They like it. They don;t want to go back to all those pesky checks and balances. Not when they can do what they like with a wave of their hands.

That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have parliament the courts and elections.

Gallowgate said:

contrarian said:

Anabobazina said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper/status/1346837400576806913?s=20

In all fairness to Hancock, he gave a decent(ish) answer to a very good question from Harper.

Hancock emphatically told Harper that vaccination numbers will not set our country free.

Government figures will.

And government figures can be manipulated.

If vaccination were the answer, the government would be setting out a timetable. They aren't. Why? you tell me.

For god sake man. The numbers are not being manipulated. There is literally no motivation for the government to manipulate them. Do you think they want us in lockdown with the economy in the toilet? Think for once.

Power corrupts.

Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

Trump super spreader event playing 'In The Air Tonight'. It certainly is.

ydoethur said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

I'd certainly agree with that.

You would agree, then, that the Republicans are nailed on to win in 2024, seeing as a donkey in a red rosette could beat the spectacularly unpopular Kamala Harris, would will presumably be the incumbent and candidate for the democrats by then.

Except of course that won;t be the case.

You think Trump will run again? And win?

(That’s a reference to the ‘donkey in a red rosette’ comment.)

Bit of a large assumption that it will be Harris. Far more likely that Biden will be running in 2024 imho.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Trump super spreader event playing 'In The Air Tonight'. It certainly is.

I think we might need to start making allowances for the fact that a huge number of Trumpers/GOPers will be dead by 2024 as they view Covid-19 as hoax, engage in super spreader events and decline the vaccine.

Even bigger Dem landslide in 2024 as Biden wins in places like Texas.

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

I'm not sure about that.

Obama was a really impressive man, but more impressive from afar. I'd take absolutely nothing away from his achievement and am personally a big fan.

At home, though, his popularity rating in office was not great (actually his retrospective rating is far better in the US - he's managed his interventions very well since 2016). He presided in a tricky period economically (by far the best period was after his final election) and was articulate but rather elitist in style (like Romney, in fact). He got a kicking in the 2010 midterms and, while he was good enough to recover, he was always struggling to keep his head above water rather more than we in Europe appreciate.

As for Romney, he wasn't great. He didn't get that close to Obama in the end (the tight-ish polling flattered him somewhat). He was about as far away as Trump was to Biden in vote share, and further away in electoral votes - he needed to win several states to get the extra 64 he required. He was a fairly standard, adequate compromise candidate, with some strengths and quite a few weaknesses.

I also think you underestimate the extent Clinton's unpopularity was down to Trump being able to drag her into the gutter with him. Was Romney quite as ruthless, and would his attacks on her being a Washington insider who is part of the elite have hit home given "right back at you, Mitt"? Perhaps not. Trump's campaign was very effective because there was real force in arguing she was a big part of the swamp he wanted to drain... Romney would've, by necessity and design, have run much more of an "I am more competent than her" campaign, and actually I am not sure that would've done it.

On topic, the GOP has just had a foretaste of what a Trumpian future would look like. The sane among them will be paying heed.

I love the fact the MAGAs and Rudi love a seminal gay anthem

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346845106310156290

Flanner said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JACK_W said:

CNN - Ossoff lead widens to 17K.

Winchester 1997.

Oaten won Winchester by 68% to 28% for Malone, Ossoff currently leads Perdue by just 50.2% to 49.8% with 98% in

I think Purdue has to be within 5% to qualify for a recount.

Yes, but:

1. Mark is brilliant. And no-one knew about the rentboys in 1997
2. Apart from the 1945 landslide and a Whig in 1832, every single MP for Winchester had been a Tory since parties were invented.
3. And it'd have stayed LibDem in 2010 if the boundary changes hadn't made Winchester a totally different place: Liz Leffman would have won it hands down if she hadn't stupidly chosen Meon Valley. "Far better than Cameron" the Tories had admitted in 2005. Even he thought she'd won when he saw the first few boxes.
3. By comparison, Georgia was a pushover for the Dems. They've had one or both Georgia Senate seats continuously from 1873.

Eh?

The last Democratic Senate win for Georgia was in 2000, which was a special election with 4 years left on the term.

From 2004 onwards both Senators have been GOP.

Going back to the 19th century is misleading since the parties switched position. When it comes to race etc 19th Century Democrats are 21st Century Republicans and vice-versa.

MarqueeMark said:

kinabalu said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

I have a list of PBers who were either overtly or secretly rooting for Trump to beat Biden.

There are 12 names on it. The Dirty Dozen.

I'm betting it includes those so secret, they have continuously said they wouldn't have voted for Trump in 2016 or 2020.... But clearly, they didn't mean it.

Only if I smelt a rat, Mark.

Anyway, I note your swift reply. Interesting.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1346852122285977600

Back above Italy now, but here's hoping for a dramatic improvement in the next few months.

UK cases by specimen date

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was trying to compile this stat earlier.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1346834407626334209

Split themselves into more states. The sky is the limit, or rather how small the stars will be in the flag

{Texas has entered the chat}

Stand by for the great states of East and West Dakota

Quote from Giuliani at the Trumps rally:
"I'm willing to stake my reputation on the fact that there is election fraud:"

TheScreamingEagles said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Trump super spreader event playing 'In The Air Tonight'. It certainly is.

I think we might need to start making allowances for the fact that a huge number of Trumpers/GOPers will be dead by 2024 as they view Covid-19 as hoax, engage in super spreader events and decline the vaccine.

Even bigger Dem landslide in 2024 as Biden wins in places like Texas.

I so want Biden to run again in 2024. Everyone, including probably him, are so certain he will be a one term president, that it will just be comedic for him to say, you know what, I think I'm doing a good job, I've got just as many marbles as I did in 2020, primary me if you want a go now.

kinabalu said:

Roger said:

Anabobazina said:

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

Alistair said:

I see we are back with the "Trump who got 2 of the 3 lowest Republican votes shares this millennium" is wildly popular line of thinking.

Wow, another leftist promising conservatives they still have a chance if only they select a candidate the left approves of.

I guess we can expect a great deal of this over the next two years.

Well I'm a right winger who thinks Ronald Reagan was America's best postwar POTUS but I find Trump revolting and am glad the Democrats won.

Maybe right wingers finding Trump repellant should be taken seriously? Just an idea.

You fibber, you are the most Trumpian poster on here. I guess you hope that saying you are anti-Trump makes you sound a little more human. Trump is a far right populist and so are you. If you were an American you would be wearing the hat and attending all his rallies and claiming the election was a fraud. You never have any real evidence for your stated views just right wing hunches, just like him. You are probably one of Donald Trump's love children

Not by a long chalk is @Philip_Thompson 'the most Trumpian poster in here'.

I disagree with what PT says but you need to look elsewhere for PB Trump supporters. It isn't hard.

Indeed. That's a bizarre attack from Nigel.

Plenty of PB Trumptons linger around, they are easy enough to identify.

Indeed not. Brexiteers all of them. Some because of his strinkingly similar amoral behaviour to Boris some because they think he and Boris can be best friends in a post truth Brexity world.

On my list - the Dirty Dozen - 10 are Leavers. The exceptions are firstly a bit of an unusual poster, something of an enigma (even to me), and secondly one who was yearning to be proved right on his prediction. It would also be 13 - split 10/3 - if I included a hardish lefty who no longer posts who would have wanted Biden beaten as an example because he was centrist mush stopping the radical wing of the Dems having a shot at the top table.

But, yes, your postulated correlation holds.

I hope @Dura_Ace is on your list: a PB Trumpton who wanted Trump to beat Biden for the lolz.

I'll give this to contrarian, at least he is explaining his reasoning, as much as I disagree with it hugely.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

glw said:

kinabalu said:

contrarian said:

kinabalu said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1346773590000226304

Yep. This is what I am opining will happen. He is net toxic to the GOP brand and so they need to have this battle and win it. Which they will (both) because the Republican party is bigger than any one man - they're not called the GOP for nothing - and they exist to win power not to service the ego of individuals.

Time to dig up the old strapline. Trump is Toast. Again.

I always find it funny when the left give conservatives advice.

Fair point. Which I have to say since I was making it myself in reverse the other day. But I am very objective for my ilk and the "advice" is sound. New American Dream v MAGA would be no contest in a polarized binary in 24. So the GOP will need to come up with something else. And I think they will.

The day Trump leaves office any incentive due to party loyalty to provide cover or protection for Trump will end. The GOP will be just delighted to leave Trump to fight his own legal battles, without any assistance from the DOJ, Senate, etc.

For the other point of view, there's also the question of whether Trump would even persist with much of an active political career, something that he avoided pursuing for most of 7 decades. The past 4 years and the run up to it are the exception, not the rule. He is a narcissist whose every action is taken to benefit himself. On 20th Jan he will once again revert to holding no elected office. He won't really care about those who would like to jump on his coat tails to benefit themselves, because it is hard to see how he could benefit personally by advancing their prospects. Maybe it would smooth his ego, but not his bank balance, so he won't be minded to put himself out beyond trying to settle a few grudges. I think his attitude also extends to his immediate family, who I think he cares little about other than how they can be used to benefit him personally, so why should he go out of his way to help them either? He may just go much the same way as an ageing mafia boss, and try and back away into semi-retirement, his main concern being to fend off attention from those who wish him harm, especially in his case the feds and state prosecutors.

This is broadly my take. He will not stay a political force - and might not even try once it becomes clear it's not happening.

Keep an eye on his Twitter count. It's 88m now.

Do bear in mind that a substantial (& growing minority) of Trump's Twitter followers are bots.

https://qz.com/1422395/how-many-of-donald-trumps-twitter-followers-are-fake/

That's a good point actually. And it could work both ways. Bots could be used to prop up his headline count. Or there could be a mass bot exodus if those behind them get a better offer. One flick of a switch in one of the 'stans and boom (!) it's another 5m gone.

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

Quote from Giuliani at the Trumps rally:
"I'm willing to stake my reputation on the fact that there is election fraud:"

Sir, there is a minimum stake required to make a bet.

There will always be some election fraud.

The issue is that Trump and co needed to find significant and sufficient enough examples of it to overturn 10,000+ majorities in multiple different states.

not_on_fire said:

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was trying to compile this stat earlier.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1346834407626334209

Split themselves into more states. The sky is the limit, or rather how small the stars will be in the flag

{Texas has entered the chat}

Stand by for the great states of East and West Dakota

I think the rules for dividing states are much tougher than adding new ones.

Yorkcity said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

Romney in all likelyhood would have thrashed Clinton.

He would have absolutely hammered her: remember, he got pretty close to Obama, hard not to think that he would done very well against the much more unpopular Clinton.

(Worth remembering that he got a much higher share of the vote than Trump did in either 2016 or 2020.)

McCain would likely have hammered Gore in 2000 too, one February 2000 poll had it McCain 59% and Gore just 35% if McCain was the GOP nominee

https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html

John Mcain was a great American citizen .

Sounds like the first line of a nursery rhyme.

John McCain was a great citizen
He grew whiskers on his pits again

Andy_JS said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1346846454657253376?s=19

Sunak hasn't been in the news for weeks, but gets a positive rating anyway.

More importantly- data up to Sunday.

There's been an awful lot happen since then.

UK Deaths

Age data

Malmesbury said:

CarlottaVance said:

Yes Mr Shapps! Finger on the pulse! That's what we want to hear about from the Transport Secretary! Electric Buses

https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1346844653413425153?s=20

Given that a large portion of urban pollution is from ancient diesel buses coughing their way along - that is exactly the kind of thing the Transport Sec. should be on about....

Great time to do it, too, given current demand for buses probably means electrifying Coventry and Oxford bus fleets requires purchase of only two vehicles (probably not practical to run both services on one bus due to the inter-city distances involved)