Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
1,440 Russian troops and 66 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today.
Not sure whether this is included, but Russian troops were gathering overnight ahead of a big early morning push - 2 brigades with perhaps 60 vehicles in a field. Got spotted by Ukrainina drones. The Ukranians fired 600 shells in, over ten minutes. Cluster and high explosives.
Every vehicles destroyed, 20% of the force killed. Many of the rest injured.
It is reported that 90% of Russian troops never even see the enemy lines before they die.
This is the change that I see over the last 6 months in particular. Both sides find it almost impossible to put together meaningful forces for an attack because any such compilation is immediately open to drone attack, whether it is 10 miles from the front line or 50. Getting things like tanks to the front line in one piece is increasingly difficult.
This has major implications as to how war is to be fought. It will increasingly become more mechanical (terminator style) and dispersed. It will require different tactics, equipment, capabilities. I fear we are so far off the pace in this respect that any attempt to deploy our own forces in any conventional way is likely to trigger a massacre. Ukraine clearly has the most effective and capable drone army in Europe. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Russia are second.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
Dropping the triple lock would not mean cutting your pension. It would mean your pension not increasing by quite as much.
I noticed that 2 of the Labour candidates in my ward nominated themselves. On checking with our local agent it appears that it is now allowed under the new rules. So we could have the situation where every couple in the ward could nominate each other and we would have hundreds of candidates. I suspect the lawyers might have to look at this again.
Yes, I was surprised by this. You used to need 10 nominations from the ward. That was dropped during COVID. You now just need 2 nominations, and that can include yourself (if you live in the ward, which you don’t have to to be a candidate).
However, I don’t think we have seen any great rise in candidate numbers.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Yes, Harris is unlikely to get it. You have to go back to Nixon to find the last losing presidential election nominee for the Republicans or Democrats who was nominated again for their party and who had never been elected president before and that was only after an 8 year gap not a 4 year gap.
She also isn't polling that well either for someone who effectively led the Democrats in 2024, leading Newsom in national polls of Democrats by less than 10% and Buttigieg leads her in early polls of Democrats in the key primary state of New Hampshire. Both of them are more likely than her in my view to be 2028 Democrat nominee
On the GOP side it is hard to see past VP Vance who has big double digit leads now in both national and early state polls amongst Republicans, effectively lapping Rubio and Trump Jr already
But you have only have to back to Trump to find the last losing presidential election nominee for the Republicans or Democrats who was nominated again for their party, and he won.
Trump had already won the electoral college and the presidency in 2016 before he lost in 2020, so a completely different scenario to Harris and her heavy electoral college defeat in 2024
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Ukraine expands anti-drone defenses, installing protective netting over 25+ km of key roads in Donetsk at a pace of 1 km per day; 371 km of such structures have already been deployed across seven regions in 2026.
Наймастабніший проєкт зі збереження, популяризації та дослідження рукокрилих в Східній Європі.
Right not a clue about the Cyrillic posted (!) but I am curiously heartened that there is such a thing as a bat rehabilitation centre ( from the link) in Ukraine in a time of war. It’s oddly normal and cute. I note Nuremberg zoo is a sponsor so I’m assuming that’s at least one source for the money.
I noticed that 2 of the Labour candidates in my ward nominated themselves. On checking with our local agent it appears that it is now allowed under the new rules. So we could have the situation where every couple in the ward could nominate each other and we would have hundreds of candidates. I suspect the lawyers might have to look at this again.
Yes, I was surprised by this. You used to need 10 nominations from the ward. That was dropped during COVID. You now just need 2 nominations, and that can include yourself (if you live in the ward, which you don’t have to to be a candidate).
However, I don’t think we have seen any great rise in candidate numbers.
Round my way we seem to have one from each of the big 5 in each ward (Con, Lab, RefUK, Green plus either a LibDem or localist party, as they are in some sort of alliance)
I noticed that 2 of the Labour candidates in my ward nominated themselves. On checking with our local agent it appears that it is now allowed under the new rules. So we could have the situation where every couple in the ward could nominate each other and we would have hundreds of candidates. I suspect the lawyers might have to look at this again.
If you own a local business, you could stand under the "Shop at Smiths" party slogan and get a lot of free publicity.
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Even if you're right about the sequence, I'd have a lot more faith than you in both the willingness and capability of Europe to fight back. And the other question would be where would Ukraine be in all this? I think they'd be fast-tracked to NATO membership and any ceasefire with Russia would not hold.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Ukraine expands anti-drone defenses, installing protective netting over 25+ km of key roads in Donetsk at a pace of 1 km per day; 371 km of such structures have already been deployed across seven regions in 2026.
That Daily Mail video someone* posted yesterday about drone fighting in Ukraine was fascinating. You watch it and think why does the British Army not convert two of its armoured divisions to drone divisions? Our army is hopelessly out of date! Hire some Ukrainians to teach us how to fight a modern war.
But then you also have to remember that the Ukraine war reflects a particular set of circumstances and not all wars are or will be fought like that. The Iran War hasn’t involved the same use of FPV and fibre optic drones against infantry. The Sudanese Civil War looks very different again.
* Oh, that was you, FrancisU. Thank you. Most interesting.
That guy has a series of videos all very interesting and some significant bravery on his part, in one there is a Russian drone incoming to their position and their are scrambling to get up their defensive drone to take it out. Some proper journalism, from the Daily Mail, whatever next....
I did stumble across a young Irish journalist who is also doing a lot of reporting from the front lines.
Ukraine expands anti-drone defenses, installing protective netting over 25+ km of key roads in Donetsk at a pace of 1 km per day; 371 km of such structures have already been deployed across seven regions in 2026.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
I am a fan of his. But I wonder if VP to a candidate with broader appeal to disappointed Trumpists might be a better option.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
He has gone very quiet. Where as Newsom is taking the opposite strategy absolutely everywhere.
I noticed that 2 of the Labour candidates in my ward nominated themselves. On checking with our local agent it appears that it is now allowed under the new rules. So we could have the situation where every couple in the ward could nominate each other and we would have hundreds of candidates. I suspect the lawyers might have to look at this again.
Yes, I was surprised by this. You used to need 10 nominations from the ward. That was dropped during COVID. You now just need 2 nominations, and that can include yourself (if you live in the ward, which you don’t have to to be a candidate).
However, I don’t think we have seen any great rise in candidate numbers.
There are sixteen candidates in Barnes ward, including four independents.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
He has gone very quiet. Where as Newsom is taking the opposite strategy absolutely everywhere.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Even if you're right about the sequence, I'd have a lot more faith than you in both the willingness and capability of Europe to fight back. And the other question would be where would Ukraine be in all this? I think they'd be fast-tracked to NATO membership and any ceasefire with Russia would not hold.
Ukraine would be the best defence for Europe in my scenario. If they were willing to take advantage of Russia fighting in Estonia to attempt to retake occupied Ukrainian territory it would leave Russia stretched.
But, even though it would be a good opportunity for Ukraine, psychologically it would be a hard ask for them to restart hostilities when they're exhausted of war, may have an imminent election, will be trying to encourage refugees to return, etc.
I’m staring across the eternal flames of Yanartas - the Homeric hill of fire - to the Greek temple of Haephestus, the God of fire, down the green Olympus valley to the whispering shores of the Lycian coast and the blue Pamphylian bay beyond
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
He has gone very quiet. Where as Newsom is taking the opposite strategy absolutely everywhere.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
He has gone very quiet. Where as Newsom is taking the opposite strategy absolutely everywhere.
Buttigieg leads in early New Hampshire polls which is more important than national polls as the early primary states give all the momentum
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Even if you're right about the sequence, I'd have a lot more faith than you in both the willingness and capability of Europe to fight back. And the other question would be where would Ukraine be in all this? I think they'd be fast-tracked to NATO membership and any ceasefire with Russia would not hold.
Ukraine would be the best defence for Europe in my scenario. If they were willing to take advantage of Russia fighting in Estonia to attempt to retake occupied Ukrainian territory it would leave Russia stretched.
But, even though it would be a good opportunity for Ukraine, psychologically it would be a hard ask for them to restart hostilities when they're exhausted of war, may have an imminent election, will be trying to encourage refugees to return, etc.
Though I think the opportunity to take back territory ceded under the putative ceasefire would outweigh that.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
I am a fan of his. But I wonder if VP to a candidate with broader appeal to disappointed Trumpists might be a better option.
All that matters is that they appeal to indies.
Dem voters will walk over broken glass to get their candidate elected after Trump's insanity.
Somehow the Dem primary process has to find the candidate with most indie appeal.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
I am a fan of his. But I wonder if VP to a candidate with broader appeal to disappointed Trumpists might be a better option.
Only Kentucky governor Beshear might come in that category but I can't see him winning many Democratic primaries outside the South
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom
He has gone very quiet. Where as Newsom is taking the opposite strategy absolutely everywhere.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
Ukraine expands anti-drone defenses, installing protective netting over 25+ km of key roads in Donetsk at a pace of 1 km per day; 371 km of such structures have already been deployed across seven regions in 2026.
It's a strange thing. But I've gradually been persuaded that this is the one matter on which he actually holds a sincere conviction.
I think he does to.
However, I also think he sees a Ukraine victory or advantageous ceasefire as a last chance to get positive publicity and to launch a bid to return to front line politics.
I could see him causing great mischief if Tories were flatlined or conceivably worse off with the current twatter queen in charge in 12 months time.
He may even position some sort of pact with Reform to give dying Tories at least a whiff of importance, instead of the complete irrelevance they are becoming now
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Harris was the most leftwing Democratic candidate since Dukakis, arguably McGovern. Some centrists voted for Trump to keep her out, even if they voted for Biden in 2020
Almost all warnings and indicators that a wider war is coming are flashing red and it is "breathtaking" that the UK government is failing to better prepare, a top academic has warned.
Dr Rob Johnson, director of the Changing Character of Conflict Centre at Oxford University, said China is taking the steps that would be expected to have the ability to attack Taiwan, while Russia could well be readying to launch military operations against a NATO country.
Russia readying itself for an attack against a NATO country? Is that because their last attempted invasion has gone so swimmingly?
It's precisely because Ukraine is so hard to fight against that Russia may decide it would be easier to take a bite out of Estonia. Plus testing whether there's any resolve in NATO would be invaluable. And panicking European countries to prioritise their own defence over providing supplies to Ukraine has obvious benefits.
Still, they'd be absolutely mad to attempt it. Who would they be calling up to launch this invasion?
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
I'd assume it would only happen after a ceasefire in Ukraine, at which point they'd suddenly have a couple of hundred thousand spare troops, brutalized by their experience of war, that they wanted to keep occupied rather than return to Russian civil society.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine. 2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units. 3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro. 4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond. 5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war. 6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones. 7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US? 8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with? 9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Even if you're right about the sequence, I'd have a lot more faith than you in both the willingness and capability of Europe to fight back. And the other question would be where would Ukraine be in all this? I think they'd be fast-tracked to NATO membership and any ceasefire with Russia would not hold.
Ukraine would be the best defence for Europe in my scenario. If they were willing to take advantage of Russia fighting in Estonia to attempt to retake occupied Ukrainian territory it would leave Russia stretched.
But, even though it would be a good opportunity for Ukraine, psychologically it would be a hard ask for them to restart hostilities when they're exhausted of war, may have an imminent election, will be trying to encourage refugees to return, etc.
Though I think the opportunity to take back territory ceded under the putative ceasefire would outweigh that.
The Finnish and Polish armies alone could beat the Russian army, and on that timeline Ukraine would probably simply mive in to liberate any territory still in Russian hands. Estonia feels quite safe at the moment.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Harris was the most leftwing Democratic candidate since Dukakis, arguably McGovern. Some centrists voted for Trump to keep her out, even if they voted for Biden in 2020
You think she was to the left of Gore or Kerry? Seriously?
I noticed that 2 of the Labour candidates in my ward nominated themselves. On checking with our local agent it appears that it is now allowed under the new rules. So we could have the situation where every couple in the ward could nominate each other and we would have hundreds of candidates. I suspect the lawyers might have to look at this again.
that's always been allowed, the change is to mean you only need two signatures rather than ten.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Harris didn't seem to have any interest beyond her own comfort zone of college educated liberal lawyers.
Which is why I keep mentioning her failure to campaign on what was one of the few genuine successes of the Biden administration.
Now industrial workers in flyover states might not have been of any interest to Harris but her campaign managers should have made her appear at a new industrial investment every single day during the campaign and loudly announce how many jobs had been created.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey & Company, child of professors at Notre Dame....its not exactly from da hood.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey & Company, child of professors at Notre Dame....its not exactly from da hood.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
Obama went to private school and Harvard and into law
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
Catholics, evangelicals always vote GOP, Biden won the Catholic vote though
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Harris was the most leftwing Democratic candidate since Dukakis, arguably McGovern. Some centrists voted for Trump to keep her out, even if they voted for Biden in 2020
You think she was to the left of Gore or Kerry? Seriously?
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey & Company, child of professors at Notre Dame....its not exactly from da hood.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
Obama went to private school and Harvard and into law
The "outsider" play in his case was a) his race and b) he had spent very little time in front line politics so was a total fresh face. Mayor Pete isn't a new face. If he was in the UK, he isn't exactly a million miles removed from your Nick Cleggs, David Cameron's, etc, from comfortable well connected backgrounds and pretty centrist.
The triple lock has become too much of a political hot potato. Just tax pension income and other forms of state income. I know I'm a low tax hawk arguing for new taxes, but politics is the art of the possible. It also has to be sold as part of every group knuckling under to rescue the country. That includes everyone (most of all the administration of Government) taking a haircut.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
Broadcaster Eamonn Holmes is in hospital after having a stroke, GB News has said. The channel said Holmes was "taken ill last week" and it was "later confirmed he had suffered a stroke".
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
Its a pretty tricky question for anybody who was in that adminstration and the media also should have got their feet held to the fire a lot more. They knew, they all knew.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey & Company, child of professors at Notre Dame....its not exactly from da hood.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
Obama went to private school and Harvard and into law
The "outsider" play in his case was a) his race and b) he had spent very little time in front line politics so was a total fresh face. Mayor Pete isn't a new face. If he was in the UK, he isn't exactly a million miles removed from your Nick Cleggs, David Cameron's, etc, from comfortable well connected backgrounds and pretty centrist.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
Harris would have lost regardless
A 1% swing was all it needed for Harris (or a different Dem) to win.
Its very possible that without the BIG LIE the Dems would have achieved that.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
I assume the discussion about potential Democratic candidates means you are all more confident than I am that there will be a Presidential election in 2028.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
That's about name recognition, not about likelihood to win.
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
The same was said about Obama in 2008 but he also knew it was early primary and caucus states not national polls that won the nomination
Obama was the clean skin against Hilary Clinton as the classic insider.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
He is certainly more of an outsider from South Bend Indiana, than rich California elitists Harris and Newsom. Harris was also an ultimate insider as VP
Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey & Company, child of professors at Notre Dame....its not exactly from da hood.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
Obama went to private school and Harvard and into law
The "outsider" play in his case was a) his race and b) he had spent very little time in front line politics so was a total fresh face. Mayor Pete isn't a new face. If he was in the UK, he isn't exactly a million miles removed from your Nick Cleggs, David Cameron's, etc, from comfortable well connected backgrounds and pretty centrist.
Cameron also won, twice
You are moving the goal posts....My point was Mayor Pete ain't some scrappy outsider, just because he didn't grow up in California. Notre Dame university is an elite institution, like a lot of them in the US, in a small town e.g. Yale is in New Haven, Cornell is in Ithaca. It a big stretch to say well yes I grew up with my folks being professors at an elite US university, then I went on to elite instiutions and the worlds most famous consultancy firm, but a humble average guy me from the tough streets. That sort of path in life you will be super connected (same as Cameron). And good on him for doing decent things in life so far.
Now if he is the right man for the job, well he seems to be a lot better than most of the other potential candidates, but the American public do pick so odd'uns.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
I'm not really sure on "Evangelicals".
The White Conservative Evangelicals are further up Trump's rabbit hole than anyone else; as I have it they have voted 80% Republican 3 elections in a row, and it is a movement building since the 1970s..
It will fray at the edges, but I'm not sure if I see any extensive flipping, though the coalition is shaking at the edges. They have reconciled themselves to an amoral, self-serving, cynical, criminal man furthering their interest. Why would they resile now en masse (though some may over the war) ? IMO they tend to live in silos so may be more sheltered from teh outside world.
The Roman Catholic vote for Trump may be bit softer - he's likely imo to lose support amongst Hispanic Catholics who reached a peak in 2024, but White Catholics have been reliable so far. Trump's picking a fight with Il Papa may affect some.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
As a general point it's a mistake to think that centrists always mop up everyone to their left (cf. LibDems vs Greens in this country). What the Democrats need is charisma and enthusiasm, which they might get from a centrist or someone further left.
April 9 (Reuters) - France's OVHcloud (OVH.PA), opens new tab is creating a dedicated defence unit after several European defence ministries approached it to support their military digital transformation, the datacentre operator said on Thursday.
Their needs include AI-augmented command, drone orchestration and communication interoperability across armed forces alongside strict requirements on technological independence from non-European providers, OVH said in a half-year earnings statement.
Harris never won a primary and was the vice President whilst Joe Biden was quietly sinking into senility. Trump has a captive hold over the Republican party but that isn't enough to win the White House without more sceptical independent voters onside too. He was beatable in 2024.
Is there a plausible, electable Democrat ready and waiting? And more pertinently would the Democratic party want them anyway. The most obvious issue they have is finding a border policy that will be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
I'm not really sure on "Evangelicals".
The White Conservative Evangelicals are further up Trump's rabbit hole than anyone else; as I have it they have voted 80% Republican 3 elections in a row.
It will fray at the edges, but I'm not sure if I see any extensive flipping, though the coalition is shaking at the edges. They have reconciled themselves to an amoral, self-serving, cynical, criminal man furthering their interest. Why would they resile now en masse (though some may over the war) ? IMO they tend to live in silos so may be more sheltered from teh outside world.
The Roman Catholic vote for Trump may be bit softer - he's likely imo to lose support amongst Hispanic Catholics who reached a peak in 2024, but White Catholics have been reliable so far. Trump's picking a fight with Il Papa may affect some.
One thing to watch is that there are lots of Blacks and Latinos now in Evangelical megachurches too. I mean not the traditional Black churches of civil rights history by this.
Chipping away at that Evangelical vote even if it remains majority MAGA can swing a lot of seats. Sure, traditional denominations matter too especially Catholics, but winning over some of the Evangelicals is key, or at least not being toxic to them.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
Its a pretty tricky question for anybody who was in that adminstration and the media also should have got their feet held to the fire a lot more. They knew, they all knew.
It's not just that they knew. It's that they kept publicly denying it.
1,440 Russian troops and 66 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today.
Not sure whether this is included, but Russian troops were gathering overnight ahead of a big early morning push - 2 brigades with perhaps 60 vehicles in a field. Got spotted by Ukrainina drones. The Ukranians fired 600 shells in, over ten minutes. Cluster and high explosives.
Every vehicles destroyed, 20% of the force killed. Many of the rest injured.
It is reported that 90% of Russian troops never even see the enemy lines before they die.
This is the change that I see over the last 6 months in particular. Both sides find it almost impossible to put together meaningful forces for an attack because any such compilation is immediately open to drone attack, whether it is 10 miles from the front line or 50. Getting things like tanks to the front line in one piece is increasingly difficult.
Ukraine doesn't need to put together meaningful forces for an attack. If it tried to take a portion of Russia now, Ukraine might well struggle to put that force together under improved Russian drone attacks.
But Ukraine isn't doing that. It is playing rope a dope. It can absorb some losses, whilst Russia takes huge losses in a front full of kill zones, trying to take some tiny place no-one in Russia has ever heard of. Probably hardly anyone in Ukraine has ever heard of. Ukraine doesn't now need to take bits of Russia as bargaining chips for fututre peace talks because it has subsequently developed domestically-made weapons that can travel to much of Russia west of the Urals. It is not held back by "donors" from whacking Russia where it hurts - its oil and gas industry. Ukraine only has to soak up what Russia throw at them until its weapons factories are trashed. Until its tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are off the battefield. Until the Black Sea fleet can launch no more missiles towards Ukraine.
And until Russia's economy is robbing billionnaires of their billions.
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Buttigieg was Transport Secretary in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Has Buttgieg explained yet why he repeatedly lied about Biden's health and fitness for a second term ?
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
Harris would have lost regardless
A 1% swing was all it needed for Harris (or a different Dem) to win.
Its very possible that without the BIG LIE the Dems would have achieved that.
Biden let us not forget beat Trump in 2020, he held on so long as it was obvious Harris was a useless candidate. As it proved when she lost by even more than Kerry and Hillary, failing even to win the popular vote like Hillary did
On topic, I am conscious that I am in a minority on this but I do not think Harris was a bad candidate at all. She was articulate, a reasonable debater, had a broadly sensible platform and lots of relevant experience for the role. I think that those who dismiss her just cannot believe that the US re-elected an imbecile like Trump. In underestimating his appeal they exaggerate and blame perceived weaknesses of Harris as providing some sort of explanation for this tragedy.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
Buttigieg would be a far more electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
No he wouldn’t.
Yes he would Harris' crushing electoral college defeat and trouncing by Trump in the rustbelt shows the Democrats have to win back the Midwest and Pennsylvania. Buttigieg and Shapiro would therefore be their most electable ticket
Merely endlessly repeating mistake doesn't make it factual.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
Yet it is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
I'm not sure what constituency that Buttigeg commands the loyalty of. He's simultaneously too centrist to the left wing LGBTQI+ crowd and anathema to much of the black and Hispanic block by virtue of being gay.
Centrist voters win elections and the voters who are most anti gay, even Hispanics and blacks, tend to always vote Republican anyway
I wonder how true that is now? Very difficult to argue anyone who voted for Trump is a centrist.
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
Being centrist in America would seem quite hard right here.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
As a general point it's a mistake to think that centrists always mop up everyone to their left (cf. LibDems vs Greens in this country). What the Democrats need is charisma and enthusiasm, which they might get from a centrist or someone further left.
I suggest that an enthusiastic, charismatic candidate who doesn't believe in border control, capitalism or law and order is unlikely to win. Taking the view that 'Trump is nutty so why can't we be' is a dangerous game to play.
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
I tried different browsers and different devices. Nothing breached the wall of silence, though I knew you'd all be arguing away behind it.
The triple lock has become too much of a political hot potato. Just tax pension income and other forms of state income. I know I'm a low tax hawk arguing for new taxes, but politics is the art of the possible. It also has to be sold as part of every group knuckling under to rescue the country. That includes everyone (most of all the administration of Government) taking a haircut.
I think everyone should be taxed on income. Maybe not actually taxing benefits, but I've long believed that recipients of benefits should get regular information about how much their benefit would have to be to remain at that level if it were taxed. In other words, how much they would notionally 'lose'. Every taxpayer 'loses' that proportion and it would be a shock to many benefit recipients. They would inevitably start to feel the government was 'robbing' them, but so do most taxpayers!
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
Did it for me several times a few days ago but not since. It was reassuring to find it had assessed me as human.
Ooh. I can get onto the comments section after several days of being unable to do so. Back to wasting an hour or more each day!
Does anyone know why this happened to certain users? I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access. It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
The triple lock has become too much of a political hot potato. Just tax pension income and other forms of state income. I know I'm a low tax hawk arguing for new taxes, but politics is the art of the possible. It also has to be sold as part of every group knuckling under to rescue the country. That includes everyone (most of all the administration of Government) taking a haircut.
I think everyone should be taxed on income. Maybe not actually taxing benefits, but I've long believed that recipients of benefits should get regular information about how much their benefit would have to be to remain at that level if it were taxed. In other words, how much they would notionally 'lose'. Every taxpayer 'loses' that proportion and it would be a shock to many benefit recipients. They would inevitably start to feel the government was 'robbing' them, but so do most taxpayers!
Pension income is subject to income tax but by happy coincidence, the state pension is set at a level just below the personal allowance.
I am watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY during our FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran. The United States will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly! American Farmers, we have your back! President DONALD J. TRUMP
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
So Starmer is to increase defence spending more quickly.
Which will require tax rises.
Or instead why don’t we ditch the triple lock.
Does anyone have figures as to how much this would save in the real world?
I assume by “ditching” what is meant is revert to it going up with just inflation (as was the case 1979 - the Coalition)? Or is it actually meant as no rises at all (which would impoverish many quickly)?
Any numbers anyone? Because if defence goes from 2.5 to 3.5% quickly that’s about £20-25bn to find I guess.
To me it's a no-brainer that the triple lock should go. Just pick one measure and stick to it. Even if it doesn't save much money it will be (or be perceived as) a lot more fair. Even the perception has value.
Ok try this perception. I'm a pensioner, who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. Why is it fair that my pension benefit should be somehow right to cut when many other benefit claimants don't work, sometimes never had and pay nothing to the state but expect to be given benefits and infinitum? Cut those benefits first and let them do what I did, work or do without.
I too am a pensioner who always worked, paid NI, tax and pension contributions through my entire working life. The proposal is not to cut the pension benefit but to tie increases to one measure rather than best of three. I know many benefits claimants and of the many there are only two or maybe three who could probably work and just prefer the easy money. A life on benefits is not luxury. Whether benefits should be provided for all who enter the country is another question; perhaps there is scope for lessening the pull factor there. I don't know.
I would consider basing the state pension on number of years NI contributions. Manual workers to qualify after 45 years contributions. Office and home based workers qualify after 50 years contributions. A one off 10% increase in the basic state pension, then link it to CPI thereafter. Also set the tax free annual allowance at the same rate as the basic minimum pension.
Unless you became a pensioner >10 years ago, you will be on the new state pension, which IS essentially based on no of years' NI contributions...
Yes, but I’m suggesting that people can only start claiming once they have achieved the relevant number of years contributions. For example, someone who remains in full time education until they are 25, and then works in the civil service, can claim their state pension when they are 75, whereas someone who leaves school at 16 and works as a builder can claim their state pension at 61.
75 is madness, most are well into their years of ill health at that point.
If they have 50 years of a civil service pension, they can choose to retire early without their state pension.
Comments
But then maybe that's the kind of world we now live in.
This has major implications as to how war is to be fought. It will increasingly become more mechanical (terminator style) and dispersed. It will require different tactics, equipment, capabilities. I fear we are so far off the pace in this respect that any attempt to deploy our own forces in any conventional way is likely to trigger a massacre. Ukraine clearly has the most effective and capable drone army in Europe. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Russia are second.
However, I don’t think we have seen any great rise in candidate numbers.
I'm no great military strategist, but my guess is that it might be the optimal strategy for Russia now to attack NATO. The sequence of events could look something like:
1. Ceasefire in Ukraine.
2. Wait a couple of months to replenish ammunition stocks, train more drone units.
3. Meanwhile the British and French stick most of their deployable military units as a guarantor force into Ukraine west of the Dnipro.
4. Little green men in Narva - test the resolve of NATO to respond.
5. Trump declares he's great friends with Putin, Estonia shouldn't have started a war.
6. If Estonia responds then Russia obliterates them with drones.
7. Does the rest of Europe go to war without the US?
8. Even if Britain and France were willing to fight, do they pull their troops back out of Ukraine to fight with?
9. How long does a British brigade last against Russian drone units anyway?
Maybe it would be a massive miscalculation on the part of Russia. Maybe Europe would be willing to fight, and would rapidly get its act together in order to do so. But my fear is that the fear of escalation is too great, that a way to back down would be found. And if an attempt was made to fight initial losses in the face of drones would be horrific, and the ability to replace losses minimal.
Once they sue for peace, we would make them give up St. Petersburg to Finland as reparations.
To me, this shows a lack of appreciation of the attraction of Trump's moronic Make America Great Again to many US voters, especially the more poorly educated or skilled who think that they have had a hard time over the last 20 years. They are, of course, right about that. Although the US has grown rather well over that period the distribution of the profits of that growth have been grotesque with levels of riches for some not seem in the US for the best part of 100 years and next to nothing for the less well off. The deep frustration with the unfairness of this system has led many to vote for someone promising radical change, even as he grifts on an almost unimaginable scale for himself and his family.
In short, I don't think Harris is the worst candidate by any means. I have been unimpressed by Newsom and have serious doubts as to whether his popularity would extend beyond the West Coast. Just maybe, after the Trump fiasco, America will want an adult to sort things out. I think Harris is well capable of being that adult.
I did stumble across a young Irish journalist who is also doing a lot of reporting from the front lines.
electable candidate than Harris or Newsom. From the Midwest not California, served in the armed forces and more centrist and less woke left than them
https://www.psypost.org/cognitive-dissonance-helps-explain-why-trump-supporters-remain-loyal-new-research-suggests/
https://nypost.com/2026/04/07/us-news/gavin-newsoms-wife-shares-sister-death-empathizes-with-san-quentin-inmates/
Gavin Newsom’s wife empathized with San Quentin inmates by sharing shocking story of killing her sister
But, even though it would be a good opportunity for Ukraine, psychologically it would be a hard ask for them to restart hostilities when they're exhausted of war, may have an imminent election, will be trying to encourage refugees to return, etc.
And now, a cup of tea
Dementia Donny, in every sense of the word, is a bad actor.
Dem voters will walk over broken glass to get their candidate elected after Trump's insanity.
Somehow the Dem primary process has to find the candidate with most indie appeal.
I think Buttigieg might well be Secretary of State to a Dem president but he's not an obvious candidate yet. He's still too junior. I don't think he would be picked as running mate because he doesn't add enough to the ticket.
The governors are the ones to watch. Beshear is an obvious, as is Shapiro.Stein might be another (assuming Cooper is a bit old by then).
Other than them, Kelly and Ossoff might be in the mix as Senators, although my gut is that Ossoff is a bit too junior for the top of the ticket right now.
in Biden's Cabinet and has been a Mayor.
It is Buttigieg who holds the early lead with Democratic voters in New Hampshire not them and he won the Iowa caucuses in 2020 too of course
Look, I rate Buttigieg, I think he's a very capable person and a brilliant debater. He's also very determined and I think would be a very good President if only because he's so extraordinarily calm. But at this moment he's an outsider and I will be very surprised if he's (a) the nominee and (b) if he wins. Given his age he has time on his side. Come back in 15 years and I think he might well have gone all the way. But not in 2028.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZag-kx9_Ew
I think we do have to accept that American politics clearly has a large more or less neo-Nazi constituency while its liberal wing is too confined to particular states to be critical in elections. I would therefore say that you are better off trying to win from the right of centre, not the centre.
Whether the Dems have fully understood that yet is another question.
What's Buttigieg's pitch on that regard?
Conservative 2024 campaigns reframed demographic shifts as an election integrity issue
https://www.psypost.org/how-extremist-theories-were-disguised-as-election-integrity-in-2024-2026-03-26/
However, I also think he sees a Ukraine victory or advantageous ceasefire as a last chance to get positive publicity and to launch a bid to return to front line politics.
I could see him causing great mischief if Tories were flatlined or conceivably worse off with the current twatter queen in charge in 12 months time.
He may even position some sort of pact with Reform to give dying Tories at least a whiff of importance, instead of the complete irrelevance they are becoming now
Which is why I keep mentioning her failure to campaign on what was one of the few genuine successes of the Biden administration.
Now industrial workers in flyover states might not have been of any interest to Harris but her campaign managers should have made her appear at a new industrial investment every single day during the campaign and loudly announce how many jobs had been created.
I think that totting up tick boxes is the wrong way to select a candidate. Much as I like Tim Walz, how much did he actually add to Harris's appeal in the Midwest? The Dems lost every state apart from Illinois and Minnesota, and even they were rather too close for comfort.
More important is to have a good communicator with a clean back history. That is where Harris fell down, apart from her obvious melanin and chromosome faults.
There's more in common between the big cities in Red states and blue and between rural areas in California and Georgia than pundits give credit. The Dems need someone with suburban and small town appeal, like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, and someone who is at least acceptable to Evangelicals, as religion is the biggest determinate of voting in America. They will win the athiests anyway.
He seems a decent chap who isn't a moron although his time in government wasn't exactly a massive success. The US public also seem to have often have "interesting" tastes.
KLOBUCHAR
Biden's cabinet could have forced him to either step down or not run for a second term.
That they did not do so likely cost the Dems both the Presidency and the House in 2024.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r4mvyrdl3o
Its very possible that without the BIG LIE the Dems would have achieved that.
Now if he is the right man for the job, well he seems to be a lot better than most of the other potential candidates, but the American public do pick so odd'uns.
The White Conservative Evangelicals are further up Trump's rabbit hole than anyone else; as I have it they have voted 80% Republican 3 elections in a row, and it is a movement building since the 1970s..
It will fray at the edges, but I'm not sure if I see any extensive flipping, though the coalition is shaking at the edges. They have reconciled themselves to an amoral, self-serving, cynical, criminal man furthering their interest. Why would they resile now en masse (though some may over the war) ? IMO they tend to live in silos so may be more sheltered from teh outside world.
The Roman Catholic vote for Trump may be bit softer - he's likely imo to lose support amongst Hispanic Catholics who reached a peak in 2024, but White Catholics have been reliable so far. Trump's picking a fight with Il Papa may affect some.
Of the 112%, only 7% is gas power. So over 100% renewable or nuclear.
European cloud provided setting up a vertical to provide services to European militaries:
https://www.reuters.com/business/ovhcloud-posts-55-organic-growth-half-year-revenue-2026-04-09/
April 9 (Reuters) - France's OVHcloud (OVH.PA), opens new tab is creating a dedicated defence unit after several European defence ministries approached it to support their military digital transformation, the datacentre operator said on Thursday.
Their needs include AI-augmented command, drone orchestration and communication interoperability across armed forces alongside strict requirements on technological independence from non-European providers, OVH said in a half-year earnings statement.
Is there a plausible, electable Democrat ready and waiting? And more pertinently would the Democratic party want them anyway. The most obvious issue they have is finding a border policy that will be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Chipping away at that Evangelical vote even if it remains majority MAGA can swing a lot of seats. Sure, traditional denominations matter too especially Catholics, but winning over some of the Evangelicals is key, or at least not being toxic to them.
But Ukraine isn't doing that. It is playing rope a dope. It can absorb some losses, whilst Russia takes huge losses in a front full of kill zones, trying to take some tiny place no-one in Russia has ever heard of. Probably hardly anyone in Ukraine has ever heard of. Ukraine doesn't now need to take bits of Russia as bargaining chips for fututre peace talks because it has subsequently developed domestically-made weapons that can travel to much of Russia west of the Urals. It is not held back by "donors" from whacking Russia where it hurts - its oil and gas industry. Ukraine only has to soak up what Russia throw at them until its weapons factories are trashed. Until its tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are off the battefield. Until the Black Sea fleet can launch no more missiles towards Ukraine.
And until Russia's economy is robbing billionnaires of their billions.
I, and many others, had no idea that folk weren't able to access.
It merely checked I was human once for a couple of seconds.
Now they're only of limited used currently as there's only a limited number of times washing machines etc need to be used.
But if they're still going come November I can imagine my electric heaters being used more and the gas central heating a little less.
https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2042953098658730018
I am watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY during our FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran. The United States will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly! American Farmers, we have your back!
President DONALD J. TRUMP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiWjeKyC6Bk