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....:)
We don't need those measures because the vast majority of people can vote a ten minute walk from their homes with a maximum of 5 minutes waiting time and easily get a postal vote if they prefer.
We don't have a party doing its best to try to make it as difficult as possible for people to cast their vote, making them wait in line for hours, reducing polling stations etc etc. In short we don't have Trump and the MAGAs and frankly I have zero respect for anyone who wants to see them in power.
I disagree with the measures trying to make it difficult to vote. What I don't agree with is measures which reduce the security of the system. I flagged before if I drop your ballot off and offer to collect it at your home, that's super easy for the voter but it raises questions over the security of the system.
Is there any evidence that Boris has even heard of this person and his Twitter account? The whole story reads like a rather sad plea for significance.
One thing we know about Boris, and something very different to Trump, is that we know he is ok with people laughing at him and thinking he looks and sounds ridiculous. It seems weird he would complain to Macron about someone mocking his policies.
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.
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....:)
But one does not imply the other does it? The question is logically flawed.
I find many things that I don't like about the American system that I would not like here. I find a number of things about our system that I also don't like. I am sure there was some fraud in the American election. I know there is some fraud in the UK elections (I have actually been involved in a case (I might add not as the defendant)).
So no I don't want many of the USA procedures used here, however that does not imply there was systematic and material fraud and I trust there has not been from all the evidence and court cases, just because some loon can't take the fact that he lost. That doesn't mean I am happy to import poor practices.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
So does the GOP fall into civil war or does it reorganise and retake the House in 2022 ?
The GOP have got themselves into a dire position. Many of them know that the Trump core are batshit crazy / QAnon types but there are too many of them to ignore so they keep quiet because they are scared of them.
I don't see an easy path for any moderately sane Republican to win a GOP Primary. That's why we still have 10 GOP Senators about to humiliate themselves by still pretending Trump won the election.
IDK, parties nearly always pick a moderate against an incumbent, not least because if the governing side isn't contested then politics enthusiasts vote in the opposition race, especially where there are open primaries. It's not clear that Trump will be willing and able to run, and if he's not then it's not clear that anybody similar can pull off what he did.
In some cases you may be correct but I believe the GOP will be dancing to Trump's tune for the next 4 years.
Trump is a malign, vindictive and bullying individual who will take great pleasure in trying to destroy any Republican who has displeased him. The right really have taken the US into a very dark place and now the genii is out of the bottle it's not going to be easy to put it back.
I totally share your opinion on the damage done but I do not think Trump & Clan will be the ongoing political force that many fear (or hope if they're on the dark side). Soon he will out of the White House. He'll be an impeached and disgraced one term ex-president with big legal and money troubles who managed the remarkable negative feat of failing to win a 2nd term after just 4 years of his party in power and while he's at it losing both houses of Congress to the hated other.
From 20 Jan his world will shrink beyond recognition. The difference between being the American president and not being the American president is almost as stark as that between being dead or alive. He'll lose all the trappings of that great office - the most important of which was to have his bullshit piped into people's heads 24/7. Supporters will drift away, not to be replaced by new ones. It will be one way traffic. Drip drip drip until what's left is something not to be taken seriously. He might even realize this himself before too long and concentrate just on cashflow and staying out of jail. Perhaps a deal? Not sure on that one. We'll see.
But Donald Trump the fearsome politician is over. No doubt there will be other grisly characters (the lizard Ted Cruz?) who will battle to own the MAGA space in the GOP, and one will prevail and be a live contender for the 24 nomination, but that person will not be called Trump and they won't be able to recreate what he did in 15/16 because that stunning achievement owed so much to his personal brand and persona. So they won't win the nomination. The Republican Party might look beyond the pale now but my money is on them detoxifying. Looking forward to the opening of the WH24 betting.
I think even if Trump and Trump Jnr do not run in 2024 one of Pence or Cruz will be the GOP nominee, the GOP base are not going to pick an establishment and moderate 'RINO' as their nominee anytime soon
Trump is a cult.* His support will wane now but it won't readily transfer anywhere and certainly not to traditional Republicans. The GoP has a massive problem, very much of its own creation. It will do well to avoid a long period in the wilderness.
* For the avoidance of doubt this is not a typo.
It should be noted that the last time a party lost the White House after only 1 term, when Carter lost in 1980, it took the Democrats 12 years until Bill Clinton in 1992 before they won the White House again.
Which is not encouraging for the GOP, at least at the Presidential level
It should be noted that the last time I flipped 3 tails in a row on a Wednesday when the President-elect's surname began with B, it was followed by a run of two heads and a tail.
Portentous.
I may sue for passing off as me
You should take it as a compliment. Even Sean has to run his own parody accounts.
Well I suppose you have to be famous enough to be worth having a parody or impersonator of you in the first place
It is a sign of blog celebrity. If a poster called "kuntibula" rocked up I'd be rather chuffed.
Now then, you're £25 in hock to me due to Georgia.
Should I come up with a couple of "double or quits" offers to ward off a settlement?
Once 100% of the Georgia votes are in and it is confirmed there will be no recount in the Ossoff and Perdue race, then I will pay up. Or if there is a recount once it is completed and if the Ossoff result is upheld
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.
“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.
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....:)
We don't need those measures because the vast majority of people can vote a ten minute walk from their homes with a maximum of 5 minutes waiting time and easily get a postal vote if they prefer.
We don't have a party doing its best to try to make it as difficult as possible for people to cast their vote, making them wait in line for hours, reducing polling stations etc etc. In short we don't have Trump and the MAGAs and frankly I have zero respect for anyone who wants to see them in power.
I disagree with the measures trying to make it difficult to vote. What I don't agree with is measures which reduce the security of the system. I flagged before if I drop your ballot off and offer to collect it at your home, that's super easy for the voter but it raises questions over the security of the system.
A potentially insecure system should be fixed. But it would need to be proportionate, which would depend also on proof of that insecurity being exploited.
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
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.
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....:)
We don't need those measures because the vast majority of people can vote a ten minute walk from their homes with a maximum of 5 minutes waiting time and easily get a postal vote if they prefer.
We don't have a party doing its best to try to make it as difficult as possible for people to cast their vote, making them wait in line for hours, reducing polling stations etc etc. In short we don't have Trump and the MAGAs and frankly I have zero respect for anyone who wants to see them in power.
I disagree with the measures trying to make it difficult to vote. What I don't agree with is measures which reduce the security of the system. I flagged before if I drop your ballot off and offer to collect it at your home, that's super easy for the voter but it raises questions over the security of the system.
A potentially insecure system should be fixed. But it would need to be proportionate, which would depend also on proof of that insecurity being exploited.
That's the thing, isn't it: if you prevent 1,000 legitimate voters from voting, to prevent one illegitimate vote, is that election security? Or is that voter suppression?
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
Essentially - whining about the result of the previous election didn't go down well.
Precisely.
The GOP should have been overwhelming favourites to win both of these run offs. A concession by Trump would have led to less interest by Democrat voters and a strong desire by Republicans to constrain Biden's incoming power.
Instead the whining has been far less that helpful and gifted the Democrats both of these seats.
I think he wanted that, though perhaps subconsciously. He can argue the result is so unusual it must be fraud, punish Republicans for not backing him and claim hed have helped them more if they had helped him more, and stoke fear of triumphant Democrats with all control to maintain his base.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hence why it won't happen. In Texas, or California (where is it suggested, every so often).
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.
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
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.
Essentially - whining about the result of the previous election didn't go down well.
Precisely.
The GOP should have been overwhelming favourites to win both of these run offs. A concession by Trump would have led to less interest by Democrat voters and a strong desire by Republicans to constrain Biden's incoming power.
Instead the whining has been far less that helpful and gifted the Democrats both of these seats.
The big question is now whether Warnock can hold in 2022. Combined with an Abrams run for governor, probably.
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
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.
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
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.
"Buy them for your non-trumpet relatives! Buy them for everyone!"
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
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.)
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
An early November 2016 Bloomberg poll also had Romney beating Hillary 50% to 40% had he been the GOP nominee rather than Trump while had Obama been able to run for a third term the poll found Obama would have beaten Trump 53% to 41%.
So basically 2012 had 2 top quality candidates, 2016 had 2 awful candidates
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
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.
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.
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.
For someone with absolute power, Boris Johnson makes an awfully large number of U-turns.
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....
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.
Very nice quote. Do you have that on your bedroom wall?
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
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.
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.
For someone with absolute power, Boris Johnson makes an awfully large number of U-turns.
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.
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.
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.
That's still no answer as there is no explanation for why they would want to use their power to do this. A devastated economy won't endear people to the government if it is done without reason, and lacking a reason why do you think parliament will continue to grant this power? Obviously governments don't like checks and balances, but making up the severity of a pandemic on the rather ridiculous assumption that parliamentarians, and the public, will not push back at restrictions once there is no pressing need?
And, as has been often pointed out, like all such conspiracies it completely falls down as it requires the willing cooperation of thousands of people in this country alone, and hundreds of thousands acting in concert across the globe in their own countries, on a matter which is devasting economies and damaging lives.
Human beings aren't that cooperative. How much money would you need to keep quiet about such a conspiracy? Mutiply it by hundreds of thousands, then ask if it seems likely all those people are in on it.
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.
I see the Tories have been caught lying again , after all their trumpeting about the extra £375M supposedly given to Scotland it turns out just as Scottish Government said , that they were lying and it was just their usual counting the same money multiple times. They have even went back and changed their press releases etc. What a bunch of deadbeats.
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
John Mcain was a great American citizen . I was hoping he would become president even against Obama. I did not dislike Obama , and was great to have a black president. However imo he was overrated especially his speech making and dealing with foreign affairs. John Mcain telling that lady voter that she was wrong over her criticism over Obama race, was an example of such a great man.
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
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.
Likely, but not 'far more'. Biden doesn't strike me as someone who, having achieved the top prize, has to hold on to it at all costs. If he no longer has the energy, I don't think he'll fight the inevitable.
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.
Tends to.
Any more to tell us about all those empty ICU beds?
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
John Mcain was a great American citizen . I was hoping he would become president even against Obama. I did not dislike Obama , and was great to have a black president. However imo he was overrated especially his speech making and dealing with foreign affairs. John Mcain telling that lady voter that she was wrong over her criticism over Obama race, was an example of such a great man.
McCain was a very decent man. Trump losing Arizona after his appalling behaviour in the wake of his death was a small bit of justice.
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.
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
John Mcain was a great American citizen . I was hoping he would become president even against Obama. I did not dislike Obama , and was great to have a black president. However imo he was overrated especially his speech making and dealing with foreign affairs. John Mcain telling that lady voter that she was wrong over her criticism over Obama race, was an example of such a great man.
I recall around the time he voted against some Trump measure in the Senate and was getting plaudits, a number of rather huffy articles saying how people shouldn't get carried away and that he was still a bad man, but whilst no one's record is perfect it did seem to boil down to 'He is still a Republican and supports Republican policies'. Which I am sure was true, but doesn't detract from his willingness to act in that way, and other examples such as you state.
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.
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
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.)
Excuse me! In my family the "donkey in the red rosette" notion was explicitly reserved for Denzil Davies, and Jim Griffiths before him!
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.
Sunak hasn't been in the news for weeks, but gets a positive rating anyway.
I suspect therein lies your answer.
When Johnson falls on his sword and Gove makes a bid for the leadership, the Dominic Cummings revelations in support of Gove will include Sunak vetoing the September lockdown.
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.
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
John Mcain was a great American citizen . I was hoping he would become president even against Obama. I did not dislike Obama , and was great to have a black president. However imo he was overrated especially his speech making and dealing with foreign affairs. John Mcain telling that lady voter that she was wrong over her criticism over Obama race, was an example of such a great man.
McCain was a fine fellow in many ways, but has subsequently been canonised by people because it annoys Trump in a way that isn't totally merited.
He was a Washington dealmaker with a nice back-story and a maverick street. He was a pretty decent chap but wasn't above political tricks and somewhat unfair vitriol about opponents - what politician is? Was he really head and shoulders above Bob Dole or Bush Snr, say? I don't think so.
And let's not forget his Sarah Palin gambit. It was a roll of the dice - and a reckless one too for an old man putting her a heartbeat from the presidency. Is that the sort of judgment that would've been ideal for the White House? Far better than the current occupant, of course. But he wasn't that great in reality.
I mean, RIP to a good man, but I'm not sure we missed out on one of the great Presidents.
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.
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.
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....
Imagine how much better if he announced they were being recharged every night with British tidal power....
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.
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
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)
Comments
I find many things that I don't like about the American system that I would not like here. I find a number of things about our system that I also don't like. I am sure there was some fraud in the American election. I know there is some fraud in the UK elections (I have actually been involved in a case (I might add not as the defendant)).
So no I don't want many of the USA procedures used here, however that does not imply there was systematic and material fraud and I trust there has not been from all the evidence and court cases, just because some loon can't take the fact that he lost. That doesn't mean I am happy to import poor practices.
https://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/28/cnn.poll/index.html
(yes, I said that)
And after Williamson's performance in the Commons today, let no one assume it's dementia
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.
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.
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.
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.
But, yes, your postulated correlation holds.
Except of course that won;t be the case.
Combined with an Abrams run for governor, probably.
(That’s a reference to the ‘donkey in a red rosette’ comment.)
So basically 2012 had 2 top quality candidates, 2016 had 2 awful candidates
https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rklCDpOEK78Q/v0
https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/1346844653413425153?s=20
That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have parliament the courts and elections.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
Even bigger Dem landslide in 2024 as Biden wins in places like Texas.
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.
And, as has been often pointed out, like all such conspiracies it completely falls down as it requires the willing cooperation of thousands of people in this country alone, and hundreds of thousands acting in concert across the globe in their own countries, on a matter which is devasting economies and damaging lives.
Human beings aren't that cooperative. How much money would you need to keep quiet about such a conspiracy? Mutiply it by hundreds of thousands, then ask if it seems likely all those people are in on it.
I was hoping he would become president even against Obama.
I did not dislike Obama , and was great to have a black president.
However imo he was overrated especially his speech making and dealing with foreign affairs.
John Mcain telling that lady voter that she was wrong over her criticism over Obama race, was an example of such a great man.
Biden doesn't strike me as someone who, having achieved the top prize, has to hold on to it at all costs. If he no longer has the energy, I don't think he'll fight the inevitable.
Any more to tell us about all those empty ICU beds?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346845106310156290
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.
Anyway, I note your swift reply. Interesting.
"I'm willing to stake my reputation on the fact that there is election fraud:"
When Johnson falls on his sword and Gove makes a bid for the leadership, the Dominic Cummings revelations in support of Gove will include Sunak vetoing the September lockdown.
He was a Washington dealmaker with a nice back-story and a maverick street. He was a pretty decent chap but wasn't above political tricks and somewhat unfair vitriol about opponents - what politician is? Was he really head and shoulders above Bob Dole or Bush Snr, say? I don't think so.
And let's not forget his Sarah Palin gambit. It was a roll of the dice - and a reckless one too for an old man putting her a heartbeat from the presidency. Is that the sort of judgment that would've been ideal for the White House? Far better than the current occupant, of course. But he wasn't that great in reality.
I mean, RIP to a good man, but I'm not sure we missed out on one of the great Presidents.
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.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/1/6/why-are-so-many-in-france-hesitant-to-take-the-covid-19-vaccine
John McCain was a great citizen
He grew whiskers on his pits again
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1346832834099630080
There's been an awful lot happen since then.
From cases data
From hospitalisation data
What kind of BS are Mitch and Trump going to get up to in the next fortnight now?
Bet they will try and ensure every single open Judicial appointment is filled.