There’s arguments both ways. Pylons are not exactly beautiful, but then much of the countryside isn’t that beautiful either. If there was infinite money perhaps burying the lines would be best, but we don’t have infinite money.
How they look is irrelevant.
No, it’s not. Lots of people believe in beauty and in the intrinsic beauty of the world around them. Maybe you don’t, but others do.
Yes it is totally irrelevant.
Rejecting infrastructure because you don’t like how it looks is not grounds for not having it. That’s one of the key reasons everything takes so long.
HS2, don’t like a train line so we have to build it in a tunnel at massive expense. Should have just said bugger off and build it anyway.
Phone masts - don’t like how they look. Too bad, we need coverage.
Houses - don’t like how they look. Too bad, we need houses.
People that reject things for visual reasons are my least favourite kinds of people.
Then in 20 years time you look at the mess created in the name of "progress" and gently murmur: "I remember when all this were fields".
And you think "thank goodness its not still fields anymore" as we now have working infrastructure, places to live, places to work and many other things more important than damned fields.
Reaction Engines (the company attempting to promote the Skylon spaceplane design) has gone under.
What happened to British engineering that made it consistently fail? (Or at least the aspirational type)
The US came up with a better idea.
And a bloke on twitter implemented it better.
That wasn’t actually the better idea I was thinking of. SpaceX merely removed the biggest short/medium term potential market for them, by making conventional rockets a lot cheaper.
Full reuse of both stages of a large, two stage rocket is probably below $50m million (cost) for 100 tons to orbit. Depending on the design, might drop to $20 million.
Skylon can’t compete with those numbers. Because of the high cost of development and the high cost of its exotic engines, it can’t fly that cheaply, per ton.
SpaceX got to cheap launch first. Then used to cheap launch to vastly expand *demand* for cheap launch.
Blue Origin are now chasing the same goal (New Glenn/Kuiper)
I know. But there will be a market for the new guys if they can get it to work. MUCH cheaper and simpler than Skylon (a name which sounds like something from a Bond novel).
The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.
In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.
Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.
One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.
Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.
Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.
I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.
Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.
Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.
I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition. Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.
“My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”
ConHome: “And where did he practice?”
Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”
ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”
Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”
ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”
I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.
Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.
Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
You don't know jack.
Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.
For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.
I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.
There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.
Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
I'm not a pensioner hater, I just think pensioners should be treated the same as everyone else. Get benefits only if they actually need them, and pay the same tax rate as working people (including NI on all their earnings including pensions).
As for the latter, why would I go to Church? I'll go if I'm invited, eg for a wedding, and have no more an objection to that than any other venue. I'll also go to see my kids perform in Brownies/Guides which is hosted by the Church and their Christmas services has religious elements to it.
You claimed we object in principle to religious services and won't go to carols etc - that's bollocks. I'll go to a religious service, I'll just think of it as the same as any other fiction - a work of fiction not to be taken seriously.
You should take it seriously out of respect for those who don’t believe. By that I mean no public guffawing during the service…
Well you should show some respect and not be rude, absolutely, but then I'd show some respect and not be rude during any other live fiction too. I wouldn't guffaw during The Music of the Night, so why would I guffaw during the Lord's Prayer? Guffaws should be reserved for laughing at things like comedy, which religion is not.
Next week, you will see people using something called Benford's Law to try to prove election fraud. ⛔️These people are wrong⛔️ I am a scientist who has published on Benford's Law. Let me tell you what it is and why what they are doing is mathematically incorrect. 1/… https://x.com/jengolbeck/status/1852523948509905121
This should be obvious to anyone who knows how it works - or who reads the rest of the thread.
"I shouldn't have left" -- Trump now says he shouldn't have left office on January 20, 2021
Trump is really leaning into pushing baseless preemptive claims of election fraud today, which is how you know he's losing
Trump is exuding big whiny baby loser energy this morning
Surely in order to guarantee a win he simply needs to deploy armed militias to Democrat wards across all the swing states, plus some other states that didn't appear to be swing states this morning.
Are there rules against firing blanks in public?
Stand behind a polling station with an M16 a fire a round of blanks - that will suppress turnout PDQ
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
God doesn't eat meat!
Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine
A pedant writes: 1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb. 2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.
Further note: Jesus's closests mates were fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000 included fish. Conclusions can be drawn from all this about whether Jesus was a vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
@williamglenn - I have to admit that you've very much taken on board comments about you cherry picking Trump-positive posts and commentary and you have switched to what can only be described as a very objective stance on highlighting ALL polls, regardless of their message. In addition, you seem to be emphasising where polling and indications both for and against Trump could be either flawed or exposed underlying real trends to extrapolate out in a very commendably even-handed fashion.
I apologise if this comes over as condescending - it's intended as recognition of something highly commendable. We don't hesitate in criticising biased commentary, so we should be equally quick to praise objective commentary and I wanted to recognise that.
So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?
One word. Abortion.
It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
Well yes:
He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.
But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.
And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.
On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
God doesn't eat meat!
Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine
A pedant writes: 1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb. 2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.
Further note: Jesus's closests mates were fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000 included fish. Conclusions can be drawn from all this about whether Jesus was a vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
On the subject of Georgia, overall turnout is already at 55%.
And the three absolute Democratic strongholds (i.e. Atlanta) of Dekalb, Cobb and Fulton are all between 58% and 61%. That sounds like a small difference, but between them they are about 1.5m votes so far out of 4.0m. That means turnout has to be commensurately lower than 55% in the rural counties that solidly Red.
I've just also noticed that there have been almost exactly the same number of 24 and under voters as 70-74 year old ones - which suggests significantly higher youth turnout than would normally be the case.
The combination of the age, gender and geographical splits suggests to me that Georgia is looking pretty damn good for the Democrats.
To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
I’m not sure they ought to call her anything. Why not just watch how she does first ?
To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
I’m not sure they ought to call her anything. Why not just watch how she does first ?
Hmmm. You're being reasonable again, aren't you...
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ? (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
God doesn't eat meat!
Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine
A pedant writes: 1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb. 2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.
Further note: Jesus's closests mates were fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000 included fish. Conclusions can be drawn from all this about whether Jesus was a vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
Just because he attended Passover it doesn’t mean he ate lamb. Perhaps he just had unleavened bread?
And you can’t access because eat fish in some varieties of vegetarianism
To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
I’m not sure they ought to call her anything. Why not just watch how she does first ?
Her existence upsets them. The Thing That Should Not Be.
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ? (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ? (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
Harris to me feels value across the board. The two I’m less confident about are NV and AZ. AZ should be good for her with the abortion ballot, buts she’s polling the worst there out of the swing states, and I think that has to count for something.
People would still oppose pylons because they look ugly. Change the law so this cannot even be taken into account
It’s simple. If you want to control what is built, you have to own the land.
In two months travelling around the US, I only came across one solar farm. It was on the hillside of the French Broad river, right across from the Lover’s Leap trail viewpoint, and had created an unsightly scar on the hillside, and as a north facing slope the solar panels had to be installed facing back upslope.
As a visiting European, I was left thinking why they had built it there, at a spot that in any other country would be treated as a beauty spot, and sub optimal since the panels were all facing upslope.
But of course, in planning-free US, there is no ‘they’. Presumably whoever owned that land along the hillside by the scenic French Broad river just decided to build a solar farm, and went ahead and did it, leaving hikers to the beauty spot across the valley sitting there lookout at it.
Meanwhile I drove 6,608 miles across the US through landscapes often devoid of any interest or attractiveness, and never saw another solar farm.
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ? (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add: Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ? (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
Harris to me feels value across the board. The two I’m less confident about are NV and AZ. AZ should be good for her with the abortion ballot, buts she’s polling the worst there out of the swing states, and I think that has to count for something.
Today’s polling (and Robert’s notes on inflation) suggest as much. But Georgia offers some of the longer odds, and looks a good bet.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
@williamglenn - I have to admit that you've very much taken on board comments about you cherry picking Trump-positive posts and commentary and you have switched to what can only be described as a very objective stance on highlighting ALL polls, regardless of their message. In addition, you seem to be emphasising where polling and indications both for and against Trump could be either flawed or exposed underlying real trends to extrapolate out in a very commendably even-handed fashion.
I apologise if this comes over as condescending - it's intended as recognition of something highly commendable. We don't hesitate in criticising biased commentary, so we should be equally quick to praise objective commentary and I wanted to recognise that.
Yes, there has been a very obvious change. Fair play to @williamglenn
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
What on earth is a girl scout.
Girl scout cookies are one of a number of American culinary disappointments.
Mom's Apple Pie is not made of mothers though it has plenty of apples and is a pie. Shrimp 'N Grits has very little grit or even gravel in it while Biscuits and Gravy doesn't as far as I've seen, contain a single custard cream, digestive, rich tea or chocolate hobnob.
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
Mr. Eagles, "I think I might back Hamilton and Verstappen for the race." Hmm. One might be generous and say this vague musing counts.
An annoying thing is that my bet was actually at 15 but the odds had slipped to 13 by the time I tipped it due to finally getting bored waiting for Ladbrokes to get a move on.
Mr. Eagles, "I think I might back Hamilton and Verstappen for the race." Hmm. One might be generous and say this vague musing counts.
An annoying thing is that my bet was actually at 15 but the odds had slipped to 13 by the time I tipped it due to finally getting bored waiting for Ladbrokes to get a move on.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
I would have joined the diplomatic corp if after post ambassadorship people still had to address me as 'Your Excellency'.
Your Excellency and a GCMG are the only two titles I've ever wanted.
The candidates begin on page 40. Most of the preceding pages are taken up by statewide initiatives. (Simplifying, we could say they are intended to reverse some of Governor Inslee's principal "achievements".)
There are 10 presidential tickets to choose from. (I rather like the expressions on the pictures chosen by the Loser's campaign.)
The religious and ethnic variety of the candidates is remarkable. (There is even a candidate who emigrated from the UK.)
But wait, there's more. Counties also put out voter guides for local candidates and initiatives. Mine, from King County (Seattle and most suburbs) is 40 pages long.
So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?
One word. Abortion.
It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
Well yes:
He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.
But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.
And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.
On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
I think this applies to Bishop as well.
Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
Watching the NFL, and so far there have been 2 commercials for Trump, both of them explicitly aimed at men, trying to convince them that voting for Donny is the manly thing to do.
Maybe this is a good marketing strategy based on the expected viewer profile, but I can't help thinking that those voters are not the ones he needs to reach to win...
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
God doesn't eat meat!
Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
No, he doesn't. Show me a video of him eating meat, then!
With AI you can't guarantee it's authentic footage.😂
God was an earlier adopter of technology. He did write the commandments on a tablet so there would be video footage. I understand he movies in mysterious ways.
He was also an early user of Apples so you can’t access because we’ve been kick out of the walled garden
Bit keen on nepotism though. Clogs to clogs in three generations.
So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?
One word. Abortion.
It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
Well yes:
He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.
But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.
And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.
On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
Yes. That's where the Karma all round comes in.
Karma! Redneck backward bollocks. Hopefully what goes around comes around.
My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.
Yes. I agree!
I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.
Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
Key strategy behind Trumps mega-MAGA negative campaigning, is to DEPRESS turnout among Independents, especially women.
Note that turnout among Inds is almost always LOWER anyway than it is among registered or self-IDed Dems & Reps. So the Trump/Vance/(Putin) ticket has something to work with here.
"The Times/Siena poll does reflect the Republican advantage in early voting. Republicans have a two-point edge by party registration among early voters in the Times/Siena poll in Nevada, but early voters overall nonetheless say they back Ms. Harris by five points, as she has a wide lead among unaffiliated voters who cast early ballots."
"Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"
Sunday Times page 13
At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it.
Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
I'm not anti-woke so why would I?
I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
How do you feel about cannibalism?
Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
I should have mentioned in that post on voter's guides that Washington state has a "top two" primary system. Occasionally, that results in two of the same party facing each other in a general election. For example, this year, in House district 9, incumbent Adam Smith faces Melissa Chaudhry. Both are Democrats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_(Washington_politician)
(There have been a couple of races, where it looked to me as if the usual minority party put up two candidates in a crowded race, hoping both would slip through to the general election. But I may be too cynical.)
My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.
Yes. I agree!
I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.
Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
Well yes:
Incumbents are being kicked out everywhere, because inflation has exceeded wage growth.
This should be an easy win for the Republicans - especially when you add in issues like chaos at the border - but as it is, I would now make Harris the slight favorite.
One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.
Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.
I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
I’ve been expecting a Kamala win throughout this campaign, based on demographic turn-out differentials and get out the vote operations. I felt a bit nauseous a week or so ago, but for now I’m very content whereas my american friends and colleagues are terrified.
Let’s see.
Today’s anti-fluoridation and anti-vax comments are just one of the innumerable reasons he is not fit for any sort of political office. That many supposedly educated people (Osborn’s investment banking friends, people like Niall Ferguson, certain quarters of the Tory Party) disagree is profoundly depressing.
Speaking of the Tories, Badenoch’s reported overture to Houchen may be her first mistake. Sunak basically lost the election when he appointed Braverman to Home Secretary. It indicated a lack of seriousness about governance. I appreciate Badenoch needs to shore up her support in a much-reduced party, but any hope of electoral fortune in 2029 needs to be based on a clear-eyed understanding of why they’ve just been rejected.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
I think this applies to Bishop as well.
Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
Most people would consider clinging on to your job title after you've retired is a bit knobbish.
My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.
Yes. I agree!
I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.
Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
Well yes:
Incumbents are being kicked out everywhere, because inflation has exceeded wage growth.
This should be an easy win for the Republicans - especially when you add in issues like chaos at the border - but as it is, I would now make Harris the slight favorite.
Accepting the fact that he controls the base of the party, he should have chosen a better VP - probably Haley.
BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
Trump has a point when you listen to that clip.
Iowa wasn`t even in question and suddenly a pollster comes up with a very different result to every other pollster with a completely different methodology, two days before the election. He is not the only conspiracy theorist out there.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
In America “President” is a title
So all former incumbents are “President X”
But there is only one “the President”
I believe its related to the military?
In the UK all military officers of Major and above get to keep their title for life, so a retired Major or General can still go by that title.
In the USA I believe all members of the military get to keep their rank for life, not just officers.
As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that privilege is extended to the President.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
I would have joined the diplomatic corp if after post ambassadorship people still had to address me as 'Your Excellency'.
Your Excellency and a GCMG are the only two titles I've ever wanted.
I’m not one for titles, but a friend of mine is a Serene Highness, which is pretty cool
One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.
Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.
I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
Could it just be she didn’t weight them away by past vote recall etc
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
Get that in terms of the GA numbers and the like. They do look positive for Harris by split.
One thing I don't think we know yet though re the gender split is whether the heavy Republican spend on trans issues - which is specifically targeted at the white suburban women Harris needs - is having an effect. It didn't in 2022 but the Republicans seem confident it is working with swing voters.
My point is that assuming the only gender-specific issue that is motivating women to vote is abortion might be right but, if - and it's a big if - the Republican strategy on trans issues is having an impact, the gender gap might be a more nuanced affair.
BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
At the moment, frankly, they are being ignored. BBC and SKY seem happy to think only in terms of the old duopoly - Labour and the Conservatives. The LDs, Reform and the Greens are being completely sidelined at present.
Just to help you and anyone else out, the LD frontbench team as follows:
He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
Evening PB.
What are those particular polls saying.?
Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
Wow. Trump has done it based on this. Who would have ever guessed this?
BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
I think this applies to Bishop as well.
Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
Most people would consider clinging on to your job title after you've retired is a bit knobbish.
Au contraire.
Retired bishops (and retired clergy in general) are exemplars of the active semi-retirement we need more of to stop the pension system collapsing.
If it weren't for all the people who can go round blessing things without needing a stipend, the church would be in even more trouble than it is.
BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
The candidates begin on page 40. Most of the preceding pages are taken up by statewide initiatives. (Simplifying, we could say they are intended to reverse some of Governor Inslee's principal "achievements".)
There are 10 presidential tickets to choose from. (I rather like the expressions on the pictures chosen by the Loser's campaign.)
The religious and ethnic variety of the candidates is remarkable. (There is even a candidate who emigrated from the UK.)
But wait, there's more. Counties also put out voter guides for local candidates and initiatives. Mine, from King County (Seattle and most suburbs) is 40 pages long.
The layout of that document is like the installation instructions that come with your new dishwasher, which no-one ever reads. Along with energy ratings, it has the required notice in twenty languages of the danger of being electrocuted if you wire it up wrongly.
One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.
Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.
I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
Could it just be she didn’t weight them away by past vote recall etc
Politicalbetting.com (no joke!)
Last time around Mysticrose and Alastair Hutton were very helpful. Alastair operated a countdown to crossover after Trump initially took the lead (stop the count!) it was very handy for shredded nerves like mine.
Remember kids the early results go to the GOP because counting in a small rural Pennsylvania community is less time consuming than an inner city Philadelphia count.
I've put my initial writeup of Nevada up in the toilets. Points to note are
By any criterion: polls, early voting, voter registration, Trump is in the lead
Surprisingly, total early votes are *less* than in 2020 (the mix has changed but the total is less). Does this means anything?
Rurals are turning out: urbans are not
Nevada has an abortion referendum on election day
Anybody want a link to backstage, please let me know.
Quick comments:
> Trump MAY (emphasis on conditional) in the lead based on EV & party reg, it's sure NOT a given.
> DJT's public efforts to hobble USPS in 2020 had effect of GREATLY enouraging Democrats from sea to shining sea to vote EARLY; this factor NOT present in 2024.
> Rural turnout is almost always higher than urban, and that is especially true of absentee & early voting.
> Nevada abortion referendum is on the ballot for ALL voters, NOT just for EDay voters.
> Note that rapidity with which voters return vote-by-mail ballots AND turn out for early voting, is affected by things on the ballot (races or measures) that many voters need to research and/or think about (not necessarily the same thing!) before they are ready to cast their vote(s).
As to the last point, here in WA State ballot returns in our all vote-by-mail election in 2024, are lagging significantly behind 2020 at same point: 64.9% on Friday before EDay in 2020 versus 47.3% last Friday.
Likely several reasons for this but clearly (at least to me) a major one, is the presence of 4 major statewide initiatives at the top of the ballot this year - to repeal carbon tax, capital gains tax, long-term care tax AND restrictions on natural gas - is slowing voters down until they have some notion as to what's what. In stark contrast, in 2020 just one statewide measure, to repeal state sex education requirements, which were upheld (approved) by a 57% to 43% landslide.
Not sure of ballot mesure situation in Nevada this year, just sayin' stuff on ballot other that presidential race CAN make a big difference in return rates.
The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
In America “President” is a title
So all former incumbents are “President X”
But there is only one “the President”
I believe its related to the military?
In the UK all military officers of Major and above get to keep their title for life, so a retired Major or General can still go by that title.
In the USA I believe all members of the military get to keep their rank for life, not just officers.
As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that privilege is extended to the President.
Also Senators and Congressmen. Not sure if they have military standing. I suspect it is simply an 18th century British convention that we updated at some point
Comments
But there will be a market for the new guys if they can get it to work.
MUCH cheaper and simpler than Skylon (a name which sounds like something from a Bond novel).
Not secret at all in most states.
http://tloverview.blogspot.com/2016/08/beautiful-pylon-designs.html
⛔️These people are wrong⛔️
I am a scientist who has published on Benford's Law. Let me tell you what it is and why what they are doing is mathematically incorrect. 1/…
https://x.com/jengolbeck/status/1852523948509905121
This should be obvious to anyone who knows how it works - or who reads the rest of the thread.
Stand behind a polling station with an M16 a fire a round of blanks - that will suppress turnout PDQ
In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).
That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.
Edit to add:
Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
You called Verstappen to win? I think you will find, good sir, that another person, who shall remain unMorris Dancered, tipped it.
In addition, you seem to be emphasising where polling and indications both for and against Trump could be either flawed or exposed underlying real trends to extrapolate out in a very commendably even-handed fashion.
I apologise if this comes over as condescending - it's intended as recognition of something highly commendable. We don't hesitate in criticising biased commentary, so we should be equally quick to praise objective commentary and I wanted to recognise that.
On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
And the three absolute Democratic strongholds (i.e. Atlanta) of Dekalb, Cobb and Fulton are all between 58% and 61%. That sounds like a small difference, but between them they are about 1.5m votes so far out of 4.0m. That means turnout has to be commensurately lower than 55% in the rural counties that solidly Red.
I've just also noticed that there have been almost exactly the same number of 24 and under voters as 70-74 year old ones - which suggests significantly higher youth turnout than would normally be the case.
The combination of the age, gender and geographical splits suggests to me that Georgia is looking pretty damn good for the Democrats.
Why not just watch how she does first ?
(Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
(edit)
I see someone has spotted that.
And you can’t access because eat fish in some varieties of vegetarianism
(And I know, I’m just having fun)
@rcs1000 tips Georgia for Harris
Fill ya boots; I reckon Kamala should be about 1.5, not 2,.74.
I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
But Georgia offers some of the longer odds, and looks a good bet.
- By any criterion: polls, early voting, voter registration, Trump is in the lead
- Surprisingly, total early votes are *less* than in 2020 (the mix has changed but the total is less). Does this means anything?
- Rurals are turning out: urbans are not
- Nevada has an abortion referendum on election day
Anybody want a link to backstage, please let me know.So all former incumbents are “President X”
But there is only one “the President”
At 11.43.
Mom's Apple Pie is not made of mothers though it has plenty of apples and is a pie. Shrimp 'N Grits has very little grit or even gravel in it while Biscuits and Gravy doesn't as far as I've seen, contain a single custard cream, digestive, rich tea or chocolate hobnob.
Actually, there are better odds elsewhere, so I shan't complain too much.
That sounds like an old world job that could mean something completely different in the digital/AI era.
Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
An annoying thing is that my bet was actually at 15 but the odds had slipped to 13 by the time I tipped it due to finally getting bored waiting for Ladbrokes to get a move on.
I was waiting for the markets to wake up.
Your Excellency and a GCMG are the only two titles I've ever wanted.
The candidates begin on page 40. Most of the preceding pages are taken up by statewide initiatives. (Simplifying, we could say they are intended to reverse some of Governor Inslee's principal "achievements".)
There are 10 presidential tickets to choose from. (I rather like the expressions on the pictures chosen by the Loser's campaign.)
The religious and ethnic variety of the candidates is remarkable. (There is even a candidate who emigrated from the UK.)
But wait, there's more. Counties also put out voter guides for local candidates and initiatives. Mine, from King County (Seattle and most suburbs) is 40 pages long.
If you want to see any of them, start here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/2024-general-election-voters-guide
Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.
https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630
"Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."
Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570
Maybe this is a good marketing strategy based on the expected viewer profile, but I can't help thinking that those voters are not the ones he needs to reach to win...
Good grief, so that was Musk’s plan all along
Note that turnout among Inds is almost always LOWER anyway than it is among registered or self-IDed Dems & Reps. So the Trump/Vance/(Putin) ticket has something to work with here.
What are those particular polls saying.?
From the NYTimes polling in Nevada:
"The Times/Siena poll does reflect the Republican advantage in early voting. Republicans have a two-point edge by party registration among early voters in the Times/Siena poll in Nevada, but early voters overall nonetheless say they back Ms. Harris by five points, as she has a wide lead among unaffiliated voters who cast early ballots."
Arizona: Trump +4
Georgia: Harris +1
Michigan: Trump +1
Nevada: Harris +3
North Carolina: Harris +3
Pennsylvania: Even
Wisconsin: Harris +3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_(Washington_politician)
(There have been a couple of races, where it looked to me as if the usual minority party put up two candidates in a crowded race, hoping both would slip through to the general election. But I may be too cynical.)
AZ - Trump +6
NV - Trump +6
GA - Trump +2
PA - Trump +2
MI - Trump +2
NC - Trump +2
WI - Trump +1
Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
Incumbents are being kicked out everywhere, because inflation has exceeded wage growth.
This should be an easy win for the Republicans - especially when you add in issues like chaos at the border - but as it is, I would now make Harris the slight favorite.
56% women.
If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
I’ve been expecting a Kamala win throughout this campaign, based on demographic turn-out differentials and get out the vote operations. I felt a bit nauseous a week or so ago, but for now I’m very content whereas my american friends and colleagues are terrified.
Let’s see.
Today’s anti-fluoridation and anti-vax comments are just one of the innumerable reasons he is not fit for any sort of political office. That many supposedly educated people (Osborn’s investment banking friends, people like Niall Ferguson, certain quarters of the Tory Party) disagree is profoundly depressing.
Speaking of the Tories, Badenoch’s reported overture to Houchen may be her first mistake. Sunak basically lost the election when he appointed Braverman to Home Secretary. It indicated a lack of seriousness about governance. I appreciate Badenoch needs to shore up her support in a much-reduced party, but any hope of electoral fortune in 2029 needs to be based on a clear-eyed understanding of why they’ve just been rejected.
Arse Lickers do seem somewhat rattled. Perhaps it’s just ordinary pre-election nerves. We’ll see.
Iowa wasn`t even in question and suddenly a pollster comes up with a very different result to every other pollster with a completely different methodology, two days before the election. He is not the only conspiracy theorist out there.
In the UK all military officers of Major and above get to keep their title for life, so a retired Major or General can still go by that title.
In the USA I believe all members of the military get to keep their rank for life, not just officers.
As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that privilege is extended to the President.
You do seem to have a problem with people who don't present your favoured view.
One thing I don't think we know yet though re the gender split is whether the heavy Republican spend on trans issues - which is specifically targeted at the white suburban women Harris needs - is having an effect. It didn't in 2022 but the Republicans seem confident it is working with swing voters.
My point is that assuming the only gender-specific issue that is motivating women to vote is abortion might be right but, if - and it's a big if - the Republican strategy on trans issues is having an impact, the gender gap might be a more nuanced affair.
Just to help you and anyone else out, the LD frontbench team as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontbench_Team_of_Ed_Davey
Retired bishops (and retired clergy in general) are exemplars of the active semi-retirement we need more of to stop the pension system collapsing.
If it weren't for all the people who can go round blessing things without needing a stipend, the church would be in even more trouble than it is.
Last time around Mysticrose and Alastair Hutton were very helpful. Alastair operated a countdown to crossover after Trump initially took the lead (stop the count!) it was very handy for shredded nerves like mine.
Remember kids the early results go to the GOP because counting in a small rural Pennsylvania community is less time consuming than an inner city Philadelphia count.
> Trump MAY (emphasis on conditional) in the lead based on EV & party reg, it's sure NOT a given.
> DJT's public efforts to hobble USPS in 2020 had effect of GREATLY enouraging Democrats from sea to shining sea to vote EARLY; this factor NOT present in 2024.
> Rural turnout is almost always higher than urban, and that is especially true of absentee & early voting.
> Nevada abortion referendum is on the ballot for ALL voters, NOT just for EDay voters.
> Note that rapidity with which voters return vote-by-mail ballots AND turn out for early voting, is affected by things on the ballot (races or measures) that many voters need to research and/or think about (not necessarily the same thing!) before they are ready to cast their vote(s).
As to the last point, here in WA State ballot returns in our all vote-by-mail election in 2024, are lagging significantly behind 2020 at same point: 64.9% on Friday before EDay in 2020 versus 47.3% last Friday.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/ballot-return-statistics
Likely several reasons for this but clearly (at least to me) a major one, is the presence of 4 major statewide initiatives at the top of the ballot this year - to repeal carbon tax, capital gains tax, long-term care tax AND restrictions on natural gas - is slowing voters down until they have some notion as to what's what. In stark contrast, in 2020 just one statewide measure, to repeal state sex education requirements, which were upheld (approved) by a 57% to 43% landslide.
Not sure of ballot mesure situation in Nevada this year, just sayin' stuff on ballot other that presidential race CAN make a big difference in return rates.