Why I’m betting that Trump won’t be the GOP WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com
Why I’m betting that Trump won’t be the GOP WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com
Next Tuesday Donald Trump is due to make a statement and the speculation is that he will seek to announce his intention to run for the White House again in 2024.
Comments
-
First like Dems in Senate1
-
Agree. +10
-
It's not over till the fat billionaire sings!1
-
Been pleasantly surprised by the lack of calls of theft and lawsuits from these mid-terms tbh.
May be a straw in the wind.3 -
FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.1 -
All his statements make clear Trump will run. Prepare for a battle royale between Trump and De Santis in 2024 for the GOP nomination which could go all the way to the convention0
-
Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.0
-
Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House0 -
I would be very reluctant to put money on something I so want to be true. Who can be impartial about the Donald? But if I was betting on this I would be betting the same way as Mike. We are finally getting past Trump. Its been tough.2
-
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House0 -
Sack James Cleverly now, he's written in Le Monde the following rubbish.
Ma présence à Paris le 11 novembre démontre que nous sommes amis, partenaires, alliés, que nous travaillons ensemble très étroitement en raison du retour de la guerre en Europe.
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/12/james-cleverly-tout-le-monde-veut-que-le-conflit-trouve-une-issue-mais-elle-doit-etre-juste-pour-le-peuple-ukrainien_6149550_3210.html0 -
On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.2 -
Yes, but he is also being incredibly straightforward. If more of these drop ins go to my opponent she will overtake me and she will win. No more than a statement of the blindingly obvious but nice to see a Republican who is willing to acknowledge that is the way it works in a grown up way.dixiedean said:Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.
7 -
The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?0
-
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.0 -
Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.
Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:
"You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.
The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".1 -
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House0 -
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.0 -
The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House-1 -
House out to 1.21 - 1.23 spread again.
Remarkable.0 -
The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.
The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.3 -
The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.TheScreamingEagles said:
The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House1 -
If Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate there is zero chance of the GOP winning the White House. 95% of his voters would have voted for him and the GOP in 2020 and the Democrats could then win with under 45% as Clinton did in 1992 when Perot ran and took lots of voters who voted for Bush in 1988TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.0 -
Am starting to think along same lines as OGH, that the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo may NOT declare his candidacy any time soon.
NOT sure I'd put any money down on that basis, but nevertheless.
Trump is a guy who HATES to lose. AND is now in electoral terms at least a three-time loser:
1. 2020 "re"-election
2. 2021 GA double US Senate runoff
3. 2022 midterm elections
Am not sure 45 is gonna want to make it 4.0 -
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
2 -
I hope Nigella Lawson is preparing an extra helping of her Bitter Orange Tart for when he starts ranting about stolen elections again.0
-
Upstate New York though is swing seat area really, with rural New York state pro Trump.DavidL said:
The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.TheScreamingEagles said:
The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
Only New York City and its suburbs make New York a safe Democrat state overall0 -
'Another?'dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.0 -
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.0 -
Democratic successes (such as they are) in 2022 have more to do with the self-inflicted wounds of Republicans - namely Trump & SCOTUS with minor but appreciated assist from Tim Scott - than to the strategy & focus of Democrats, in particular the drones of the DCCC.DavidL said:
The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.TheScreamingEagles said:
The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
Of whom Sean Patrick Baloney, soon-to-be ex-US Rep & head of Dee-Trip(e), is the Poster Child of 2022.2 -
Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.
Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:
"You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.
The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".0 -
No.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.
Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:
"You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.
The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".
That speech makes grammatical and logical sense.
So no comparison at all.0 -
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too0 -
Fifth columnist, no question. Probably has Castillon tattooed on his bicep.TheScreamingEagles said:Sack James Cleverly now, he's written in Le Monde the following rubbish.
Ma présence à Paris le 11 novembre démontre que nous sommes amis, partenaires, alliés, que nous travaillons ensemble très étroitement en raison du retour de la guerre en Europe.
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/12/james-cleverly-tout-le-monde-veut-que-le-conflit-trouve-une-issue-mais-elle-doit-etre-juste-pour-le-peuple-ukrainien_6149550_3210.html0 -
Sounds more like the sort of window that Russian politicians tend to interact with.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.0 -
Yeah, I posted that prediction earlier today.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House0 -
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.2 -
More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.rcs1000 said:
The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.
The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
Districts were torn every which way.0 -
In 1968, George Wallace's "Stand Up for America" campaign took way more votes from Richard Nixon than from Hubert Humphrey (Texas for example, won by HHH, plus some southern states won by GW himself).TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
A similar Trump independent campaign in 2024 would take more votes from Republican than from Democratic nominee, whomever the Rs & Ds end up nominating.0 -
William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.3 -
America is a funny old place.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
Trump gets 10%, Biden beats DS by 5 but 'EC maths' and they are even and Trump gets his best result in, i dunno, Alabama and takes it 36, 34, 30, taking their 9 votes and leaving it 268-261 to the other 2
Edit - or Dems flood to Trump in Republican strongholds as a stop De Santis measure if they are running behind0 -
My sense is the drop in the female vote has massively cost the Republicans, particularly in close races.logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
They'd otherwise be walking this. Senate and House.0 -
Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.HYUFD said:
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
*Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.1 -
Toon ahead.0
-
In 1964 LBJ won all 8 out of 13 southern States.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
In 1968, George Wallace's "Stand Up for America" campaign took way more votes from Richard Nixon than from Hubert Humphrey (Texas for example, won by HHH, plus some southern states won by GW himself).TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
A similar Trump independent campaign in 2024 would take more votes from Republican than from Democratic nominee, whomever the Rs & Ds end up nominating.
In 1968 Humphrey won just 1 southern state, Texas, with Wallace winning 5 southern States and Nixon
the remaining 7.
1968 was the first clear sign the Democrats had lost the South effectively in most Presidential elections going forward.
Though yes Trump would hit the GOP more now the South is a largely Republican region0 -
This is the narrow window.
In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate.
During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election0 -
By that time, Bryan was also famous as promoter of Florida real estate AND popularizer of the Palm Beach Suit.Carnyx said:
Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.
Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:
"You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.
The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".
WJB's role in Scopes trial was part and parcel of his defense of old-time American values and old-school Christianity against the reasons and ravages of modernism and (dare I say it?) wokeism.
BTW, the play and movie "Inherit the Wind" is a total hatchet job where Bryan is concerned. About as reliable as history as Oliver Stone's "JFK".0 -
Some real tight races there, needs more gerrymandering.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House0 -
So we're going to get Trump running, presumably on a basis of 'I won 2 times in a row but one was stolen, you are all ungrateful f*ckers and if you don't support me I will destroy you'.
And possibly at least one very direct 'Trump is a loser and we need to move on from him' candidate, to get smashed.
And DeSantis just throws his hat in the ring without being as direct, but just continually pointing to his result vs Trump fanatics?0 -
We need to revise our view of what's been happening over the last 15 years: Scottish nationalism, Corbyn, even some of those who voted for Brexit, Trump... it's an anti-establishment revolt for all the fuck-ups that led to the GFC, and their arrogance and self-serving nature in the process and thereafter.DavidL said:I would be very reluctant to put money on something I so want to be true. Who can be impartial about the Donald? But if I was betting on this I would be betting the same way as Mike. We are finally getting past Trump. Its been tough.
Now, I think, voters are learning that populism provides no easy answers. But, they still don't like establishment centrist political figures either.
The savvy political moderate who addresses these concerns with real solutions, and shows voters absolute respect, will inherit the earth.1 -
Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.dixiedean said:
Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.HYUFD said:
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
*Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.0 -
Think he'll run but be rejected - by the GOP and if not by the country. The big question for me is how much damage he'll do - and to who and to what - as he goes down. Dems at 2.5 for the WH is something to consider imo.1
-
That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.Alistair said:
More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.rcs1000 said:
The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.
The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
Districts were torn every which way.
Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.0 -
Do squeals or whines count ?Sunil_Prasannan said:It's not over till the fat billionaire sings!
0 -
Republican president, and depending on Georgia run off and Nevada, deadlock on VPTheScreamingEagles said:This is the narrow window.
In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate.
During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election0 -
A valuable lesson, perhaps.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
Or will they learn nothing ?0 -
He'd be the regionalist. And the centrist, too, in that case.SandyRentool said:
Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.dixiedean said:
Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.HYUFD said:
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
*Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.0 -
I think he’s done.logical_song said:The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?
He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.0 -
NEW: Dominic Raab facing more bullying claims from time as Brexit secretary - with a document outlining “formal expression of concern” sent to Cabinet Office - by @michaelsavage @tobyhelm & me https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/12/dominic-raab-facing-more-bullying-claims-from-time-as-brexit-secretary?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other0
-
Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.TheScreamingEagles said:
William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.
Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.
Sound familiar?1 -
Oh, no, it is entirely the New York Dems fault. They be some dumb mutha fuckers. I is genuinely jaw dropping how badly they fucked it.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.Alistair said:
More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.rcs1000 said:
The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.
The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
Districts were torn every which way.
Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.
Its just not quite as simple as saying the NY has "fair" maps though.0 -
-
What's his best way of hoovering up donations for the longest time which he can siphon off?Nigelb said:
I think he’s done.logical_song said:The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?
He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.0 -
True, but really no such thing as totally fair map re: redistricting. Somebody's ox is bound to get gored.Alistair said:
Oh, no, it is entirely the New York Dems fault. They be some dumb mutha fuckers. I is genuinely jaw dropping how badly they fucked it.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.Alistair said:
More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.rcs1000 said:
The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.WillG said:
What actually happened in New York?logical_song said:
That's much better than the Dems expected.Alistair said:Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.
https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19
Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.
The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
Districts were torn every which way.
Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.
Its just not quite as simple as saying the NY has "fair" maps though.0 -
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:0 -
...
At least she didn't expense them.HYUFD said:1 -
No, if he loses the nomination to DeSantis Trump would run out of spite to split the GOP vote and hand the election to the Democrats.Nigelb said:
I think he’s done.logical_song said:The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?
He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.
His aim would not be to win, purely to say they should have nominated him again. As far as Trump is concerned he now owns the GOP and any candidate who attempts to challenge that must be humiliated0 -
You mean it was a waste of someone else's money?HYUFD said:1 -
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.WillG said:
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.2 -
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:1 -
Whose money did she spend?HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:0 -
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:1 -
Shocking and vital news.HYUFD said:
It was ages ago and all. I mean, she mentioned it so its fine for an outlet to make a story, but there's no angle here.0 -
Though with Trump v DeSantis v Democrat, the Dems would be heavy odds on to win Florida.dixiedean said:
He'd be the regionalist. And the centrist, too, in that case.SandyRentool said:
Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.dixiedean said:
Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.HYUFD said:
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.TheScreamingEagles said:
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.dixiedean said:
Trump and another Republican on the ballot?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.logical_song said:
.... as do the Republicans?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, I agree.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
470 more likely.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
*Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.0 -
I've been to Dayton TN. Even in the 1990s it was an old-fashioned Southern town racially divided by the (non-functioning) railroad track. The portrayal of WJB as a drunken trencherman in ITW comprehensively destroyed his political legacy.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.TheScreamingEagles said:
William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.
Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.
Sound familiar?0 -
It's in the first line of the story! Hard to miss.TheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:0 -
She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazineturbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:0 -
Yeah.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:
Utterly outrageous she didn't get a Party donor to pay for it.
What's it coming to?6 -
Trump and his most devoted acolytes (almost said catamites!) have given election denial a BAD reputation.DavidL said:
Yes, but he is also being incredibly straightforward. If more of these drop ins go to my opponent she will overtake me and she will win. No more than a statement of the blindingly obvious but nice to see a Republican who is willing to acknowledge that is the way it works in a grown up way.dixiedean said:Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.
Both as a allegedly quasi-coherent argument AND even more importantly as a campaign tactic.
Wages of 1/6/21.0 -
I don’t get HYFUD posting it here as if she’s done something wrong. It was 12 years ago, so totally unrelated to CoL. I assume she’s paid the loan back by now.wooliedyed said:
She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazineturbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:1 -
She mentioned it, sure.wooliedyed said:
She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazineturbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:
Media outlets will choose whether to focus on it as of any interest or not.
HYUFD thought it was fertile ground for a political attack (initially that was not clear, but his follow up revealed it).1 -
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to makeTheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:-2 -
Perhaps, but I think most are just sick of the sight of Tories right now. Put a red rosette on a shop dummy and I think it will win in most places.HYUFD said:
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to makeTheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:2 -
I think the voters would relate with a woman who was dealing with pregnancy related weight issues.HYUFD said:
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to makeTheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:1 -
In which case I'd be very interested in what the current PM has chosen to spend £5k on.HYUFD said:
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to makeTheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:
I should imagine it to be a lengthy list.
I am not interested in what legal things politicians choose to spend their own money on.
Borrowed or not.2 -
Sometimes I have to applaud your commitment to the bit.HYUFD said:
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough sounding choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to makeTheScreamingEagles said:
It happened 12 years ago.HYUFD said:
At a time of cost of living crisis?turbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:
You are seriously trying to suggest voters will find the idea the Deputy Leader of Labour, a niche political figure with all respects to her, took a loan for a personal extravagance more than a decade ago, before she was an MP and in much better economic times, to be insufficiently austere? Whilst the PM is close to billionaire status?
Could you lay out the logic for me as to why that would strike a chord? Maybe you could denigrate her intellect again because she left school at 16.
The story is just adding a bit of further detail to her backstory is all.2 -
Oh i agree, there is no story other than she is vain and wasted a load of money on having her boobs done. Like millions of other women, and increasingly, men. The vanity industry is a moneymakerturbotubbs said:
I don’t get HYFUD posting it here as if she’s done something wrong. It was 12 years ago, so totally unrelated to CoL. I assume she’s paid the loan back by now.wooliedyed said:
She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazineturbotubbs said:
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.HYUFD said:0 -
Oh really?Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.WillG said:
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament0 -
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.HYUFD said:
Oh really?Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.WillG said:
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
1 -
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!Richard_Tyndall said:
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.HYUFD said:
Oh really?Richard_Tyndall said:
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.WillG said:
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.Richard_Tyndall said:FPT
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)Chris said:
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.Cookie said:
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.kle4 said:In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.
There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.
The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:
• 0.6% in 1851
• 1.5% in 1901
• 4.2% in 1951
• 8.3% in 2001
• 16.8% in 2022
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA
2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament2 -
BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.0
-
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.HYUFD said:
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
2 -
They sure made him out to be the monkey. Ook!SeaShantyIrish2 said:
By that time, Bryan was also famous as promoter of Florida real estate AND popularizer of the Palm Beach Suit.Carnyx said:
Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.
Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:
"You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.
The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".
WJB's role in Scopes trial was part and parcel of his defense of old-time American values and old-school Christianity against the reasons and ravages of modernism and (dare I say it?) wokeism.
BTW, the play and movie "Inherit the Wind" is a total hatchet job where Bryan is concerned. About as reliable as history as Oliver Stone's "JFK".
(Got a decent history of the trial somewhere, to be fair.)0 -
So we will have less money not to spend on things that have closed down. Awesome.dixiedean said:BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.
1 -
Dayton TN, home of Bryan CollegeAlphabet_Soup said:
I've been to Dayton TN. Even in the 1990s it was an old-fashioned Southern town racially divided by the (non-functioning) railroad track. The portrayal of WJB as a drunken trencherman in ITW comprehensively destroyed his political legacy.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.TheScreamingEagles said:
William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?
As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.
Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.
Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.
Sound familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_College
Somebody could do a REALLY interesting movie about the Life and Times of William Jennings Bryan. From Illinois farm to Nebraska frontier (sorta) to political fame (if not fortune) to US Secretary of State at start of WWI (until he resigned due to Lusitania Crisis) to Florida Gold Coast booster to tribune (and martyr) for Creationism.
You are true that WJB has never lived (or rather died) down the portrait of him drawn by "Inherit the Wind".
At same time, his "Cross of Gold" speech of 1896 remains as one of the great moments of American political history.
This recording made by WJB of "CoG" twenty-five does NOT have the atmosphere of the 1896 convention, but does convey some idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV2wRCcWJa81 -
So more realistically about £15bn achieved in cuts, £10bn obtained in tax rises, and £30bn pushed onto an extended period for savings/additional rises, once markets hopefully calm down a bit and acknowledge the government has shown willing to get a grip.dixiedean said:BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.
0
