Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 2016 should be the Republicans’ year for the White House

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 2016 should be the Republicans’ year for the White House

Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats’ candidate for the presidency next year, short of falling under a bus. Sanders is far too left-wing to be electable and offers nothing beyond his base, Biden has announced he won’t run, and no-one else is on the same lap, never mind in the frame. All she has to do is turn up, smile and not have a TalkTalk account.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    edited October 2015
    Thanks for this David.

    The article just highlights the poor choices facing the US electorate, and the dire state of US politics.

    Oh, and first.
  • What is odd about this GOP race is the party establishment has not spoken. It has a majority in Congress yet none of them seems to have taken a view on the primaries. Perhaps they are waiting to see where the dice land.

    As an aside, Carly Fiorina is adjudged to have won two debates yet has twice seen her poll boost dissipate.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Do any of these candidates really look like they could be President in 18 months' time? This is the weakest field in living memory, surely someone might come from nowhere and join in - Bloomberg?

    Anyway, off to the cricket for hopefully a full day there today. England in with a good chance of overhauling the Pakistan total, but the pitch will probably start to turn towards the bowlers as the day progresses. Should be a good contest if we don't lose early wickets.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586
    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Your avatar indicates a roman nose ....

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Your avatar indicates a roman nose ....

    Your avatar indicates a penchant for a certain pretender... :D
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Your avatar indicates a roman nose ....

    Your avatar indicates a penchant for a certain pretender... :D
    Your avatar indicates a penchant for cross dressing in a Muslim veil ....

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Your avatar indicates a roman nose ....

    Your avatar indicates a penchant for a certain pretender... :D
    Your avatar indicates a penchant for cross dressing in a Muslim veil ....

    What can I say, I'm a modern-day PB Tory! :D
  • Every US election seems to be framed as one in which the electorate is being presented with the worst choice of candidates ever. Obama/Cain might have been an exception, given Obama's back story, but Clinton/Dole, Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry and Obama/Romney were not exactly inspiring.

    To become a Republican member of Congress or to win the governorship of a Red state you generally have to tack right. That creates a record that makes winning the presidency a whole lot harder as more moderates turn out to vote. In the age of the Tea Party can the old right left routine still work for Republican nominees who have previously held office?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    edited October 2015
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    XLV - very good! Had me puzzled for a moment though until I remembered my Latin.

    On topic, it isn't looking like a very strong field, but as SO points out, we say this every time (it was of course said in 1960, when the Democrats put up some random womanising lightweight that nobody had ever heard of whom Nixon was widely expected to beat by a huge margin).

    Ever since the Republican hegemony collapsed in 1932, however, they seem to have struggled to win in their own strength unless the Democrats have made a truly imposingly awful mess of running the country (1968) or the Republicans have a very strong outsider candidate who appeals beyond just the party base (1952, 1980). The Bushes were exceptions, but both got in by fairly narrow margins (and HW remains one of only two elected US presidents since 1932 to be defeated in his re-election bid). By contrast, the Democrats actually have a fairly good record it seems to me of winning by default in fairly evenly matched fields: 1948 and 1992 to an extent, 1960, 1976, 2008.

    From that point of view, Trump might be the logical choice for the Republicans - the gamble on the outsider. The fact that he is barking mad, however, unlike Reagan, and has had a less than brilliantly successful career, unlike Eisenhower, should be warning enough that he's not the answer. As DH says, that realistically leaves Rubio - if the Republicans will pick him. The question, I think, is whether they want power badly enough to pick someone to appeal to swing voters, or they will choose a True Believer so they can feel good about themselves and just carp about the stupidity of the electorate, a la Corbyn. That's where I don't know enough about the American electorate, especially the Republican electorate, to speculate.

    PS - I hope @Sandpit is enjoying his day at the cricket. England are seemingly having fun in the sun this morning. Even Bairstow is scoring runs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Crap. Root goes caught behind for 88
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    Sandpit said:

    Crap. Root goes caught behind for 88

    Sorry Sandpit. I should have kept my keyboard quiet...
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited October 2015
    If Rubio does get the nomination, how will the Democrats attack him? While he may be very conservative, I don't think he can be stereotyped as either a rich corporatist type, a reckless warmongerer, or a religious zealot which are the Democrats go to stereotypes.

    Hillary Clinton might be the one Democrat who can maintain black turnout, given her husband was 'the first black president' and all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Crap. Root goes caught behind for 88

    Sorry Sandpit. I should have kept my keyboard quiet...
    You spoke too soon! Still, we are 171 behind now so it we can stay in until tea we've a good chance of overtaking the Pakistan score.
    Also good to see a decent crowd slowly turning up, the 'home' team are outnumbered in the stands at the moment!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Hillary Clinton will be the extremely large vice president of the United States?

    Seems a bit unfair to me (and she won't)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015
    More crap. Bairstow goes also caught behind :-(
    Edit. Or does he...? Saved by the replay.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    HCWBTXLVPOTUS? :D
    Hillary Clinton will be the extremely large vice president of the United States?

    Seems a bit unfair to me (and she won't)
    I was going to suggest that she be the president in charge of vice, but surely Bill would be a shoe-in for any such role in any Clinton White House :wink:
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Stokes gone now for single figures. No doubt about that catch :-(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    edited October 2015
    Sandpit said:

    Stokes gone now for single figures. No doubt about that catch :-(

    And then that happens. I'm still not sure why they played Stokes instead of Patel in these conditions. It's not as though Stokes is an unbeatably brilliant all-rounder in the mould of Imran Khan or Mike Proctor, with either bat or ball. He's a bit of a Jacob Oram or James Franklin - pretty good, but frustratingly inconsistent and not quite world-class in any one discipline. In England, an excellent fourth seamer - abroad, not quite so sure.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    Do South Africa have a chance today?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    edited October 2015
    F1: Palmer to drive for Lotus next year:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34622959

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Sandpit, no. The closest would be the 2011 Canadian Grand Prix, which had a two hour rain interval and prompted a new total time limit of four hours (stupidly, as the race was an absolute classic with Button winning on the final lap having been 21/21 halfway into the race), and the 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix, during which a monsoon fell and the race was stopped halfway through.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
    There was a Malaysian GP in the evening in Button's year cancelled because the monsoon rain began half-way through it (as Ecclestone had been repeatedly warned it would). Can't remember any that were cancelled entirely.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    Article on Momentum.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34609114

    Thought it would enlighten, but rather too brief, though Dave Nellist gets a mention. Vox pops all very well, but the thinness of the analysis is breathtaking.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    And now Buttler. 3 wickets in the first hour. Beer o'clock I think!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    edited October 2015
    Sandpit said:

    And now Buttler. 3 wickets in the first hour. Beer o'clock I think!

    Time for Bairstow to take the gloves and Taylor or even Hales to bat at 5? I'm not quite convinced by Bairstow at higher than no. 7 (although you have to admit he's doing his utmost here).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
    There was a Malaysian GP in the evening in Button's year cancelled because the monsoon rain began half-way through it (as Ecclestone had been repeatedly warned it would). Can't remember any that were cancelled entirely.
    Yep, I remember the Malaysian monsoon and the Canadian race that finished in the dark but don't ever remember a complete washout before. Although if reports are to be believed the storm will put a mere sporting event into perspective. Might even threaten the Mexican GP next weekend.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015
    This is going to be a long day at the cricket.
    Edit: a very very long day. At least the bat's open. Eng 223/8
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    edited October 2015
    Sandpit said:

    This is going to be a long day at the cricket.

    We've really jinxed them well between us, haven't we? 250 would be a pretty good score from here.

    EDIT - I think that last one was always a matter of time. Now let's see if Broad can play a few shots.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Sandpit, I heard it had the strongest winds ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere. Sounds, unfortunately, like an absolutely massive storm.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    edited October 2015
    another one bites the dust.

    five wickets for 17 runs

    changes radio station.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    Sandpit said:

    This is going to be a long day at the cricket.
    Edit: a very very long day. At least the bat's open. Eng 223/8

    Far too open. They need to try using the middle of it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314

    Sandpit said:

    This is going to be a long day at the cricket.
    Edit: a very very long day. At least the bat's open. Eng 223/8

    Far too open. They need to try using the middle of it.
    *Applauds*
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    Blame Corbyn is trending on twitter - No 2.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    This is going to be a long day at the cricket.

    We've really jinxed them well between us, haven't we? 250 would be a pretty good score from here.

    EDIT - I think that last one was always a matter of time. Now let's see if Broad can play a few shots.
    Looks like I'll be watching more of England's bowlers than expected today, unfortunately. 100 behind would be good from here.

    Did I say the bat was open, maybe I meant to say the bar is open! :smiley:
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    Another esxcellent David H article - he could make a decent living writing for a professional magazine for money and we're lucky to have him.

    The only thing I'd add is that even sophisticated observers see people as non-Presidential until they get within a shout of winning, when suddenly they look plausible. David cites Kennedy, I'd also point to Reagan, who in his own terms was hugely successful but the pundits always struggled to take seriously even after he'd won. So although I don't rate Carson either (he's a bright surgeon who has mistakenly strayed into politics), I think it's a mistake to rule him out. People get used to unusual characters.

    Is too late for a fresh challenger? Probably. The organisation and potential funding has to be largely in place by now. It's just about viable to have donors who say they'll only donate big time if you win New Hampshire, but if you don't have an embryonic national network now, you've missed the bus. But all the Republicans except Trump are just one bad debating mistake away from meltdown, so plumping heavily for anyone looks risky - the strategy of laying the favourite du jour but betting on a GOP victory may be the best for the time being.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Really annoying there's no radio commentary or TV replays in the ground. Even TMS is region blocked online. There's a couple of thousand of us wondering what's happening right now.
  • Worth a read for insights into Labour and the massive influence of the Unions.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    “We didn’t expect to win,” admitted campaign aide Jon Lansman, on Left Futures, the increasingly influential Corbynite website of which he is the editor. Most campaign staff had been on secondment from supportive trade unions, while others were on unpaid leave. Trade union officials were “greeted like conquering heroes” on their return to work on the Monday after special conference...."
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    Sandpit said:

    Really annoying there's no radio commentary or TV replays in the ground. Even TMS is region blocked online. There's a couple of thousand of us wondering what's happening right now.

    #blameCorbyn
  • I look at Trump and despair for the Republicans. If not selected he is highly likely to stand as an independent and wreck the Republican chances. The man has few principles except putting himself first.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    WICKET
    Wood b Younus b Yasir 1 (Eng 233-9)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Interesting piece on Japanese outcasts:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34615972
  • Worth a read for insights into Labour and the massive influence of the Unions.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    “We didn’t expect to win,” admitted campaign aide Jon Lansman, on Left Futures, the increasingly influential Corbynite website of which he is the editor. Most campaign staff had been on secondment from supportive trade unions, while others were on unpaid leave. Trade union officials were “greeted like conquering heroes” on their return to work on the Monday after special conference...."

    Fear not. There'll be another TU Bill after the next election. Perhaps we should have a thread about what Peebies would like to see in it.

    Apart from the arrest for High Treason of anyone who's ever voted Labour or Green, of course.

  • Electoral Commission is in the news today.
    Its Deputy CE is Carolyn Hughes who "joined the Electoral Commission in May 2007.
    Her last role was as Director of Finance at Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust. "
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/who-we-are/executive-and-management-team

    "Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust which had long standing financial problems. It was obliged to borrow £27.3 million in Public Dividend Capital in 2006-7"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinchingbrooke_Hospital
  • Worth a read for insights into Labour and the massive influence of the Unions.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    “We didn’t expect to win,” admitted campaign aide Jon Lansman, on Left Futures, the increasingly influential Corbynite website of which he is the editor. Most campaign staff had been on secondment from supportive trade unions, while others were on unpaid leave. Trade union officials were “greeted like conquering heroes” on their return to work on the Monday after special conference...."

    Fear not. There'll be another TU Bill after the next election. Perhaps we should have a thread about what Peebies would like to see in it.
    Apart from the arrest for High Treason of anyone who's ever voted Labour or Green, of course.
    Ho ho ho. Why should trade union funded people be working on political activities? The scale of trade union funded people that helped Corbyn just underlines the fact of how impossible it will be for the blairite/progress group to pull Labour back into electoral relevance. The situation is far worse than when Labour had its Tony Benn and militant problems.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
    There was a Malaysian GP in the evening in Button's year cancelled because the monsoon rain began half-way through it (as Ecclestone had been repeatedly warned it would). Can't remember any that were cancelled entirely.
    Yep, I remember the Malaysian monsoon and the Canadian race that finished in the dark but don't ever remember a complete washout before. Although if reports are to be believed the storm will put a mere sporting event into perspective. Might even threaten the Mexican GP next weekend.
    I can't think of a complete washout either - there probably hasn't been one, at least since the 1960s.

    The famous Japanese grand prix which was the title decider between Hunt and Lauda in 1976 was extremely wet. Although Lauda had his own reasons for complaining. ISTR there was also an extremely wet race in 1981 or 82, and there is the also-famous Monaco win in the mid-80s where Senna was 'robbed' of his first win, at least according to some.

    Although rain can make races exciting, it can be a little too exciting:
  • Worth a read for insights into Labour and the massive influence of the Unions.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    “We didn’t expect to win,” admitted campaign aide Jon Lansman, on Left Futures, the increasingly influential Corbynite website of which he is the editor. Most campaign staff had been on secondment from supportive trade unions, while others were on unpaid leave. Trade union officials were “greeted like conquering heroes” on their return to work on the Monday after special conference...."

    Fear not. There'll be another TU Bill after the next election. Perhaps we should have a thread about what Peebies would like to see in it.

    Apart from the arrest for High Treason of anyone who's ever voted Labour or Green, of course.

    The more the Tories legislate to separate the unions from Labour the better for Labour it will be in the long term. As ever, the Tories are the best chance Labour has. That said, NickP and the rest of the membership are going to have to get past their fondness for JC and the Stalinists currently developing Labour strategy or that to begin to happen.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    Lord Grabiner has followed Lord Warner in quitting the Labour Party:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4595057.ece
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    This made me smile
    It felt like déjà vu all over again: just as Ed Miliband’s slick campaign quickly gave way to chaos and disunity – with, in the words of one aide, “everyone trying to be their favourite West Wing character” – Corbyn’s operation suffered a hideous start.

    Worth a read for insights into Labour and the massive influence of the Unions.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    “We didn’t expect to win,” admitted campaign aide Jon Lansman, on Left Futures, the increasingly influential Corbynite website of which he is the editor. Most campaign staff had been on secondment from supportive trade unions, while others were on unpaid leave. Trade union officials were “greeted like conquering heroes” on their return to work on the Monday after special conference...."

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015
    FPT
    notme said:

    The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?

    Alternatively, does it mean that there are a significant number of Labour voters who are sympathetic to The Sun's general representation of society and it's basic values?

    If so, Corbyn's Labour are Donald Ducked.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    dr_spyn said:

    Sandpit said:

    Really annoying there's no radio commentary or TV replays in the ground. Even TMS is region blocked online. There's a couple of thousand of us wondering what's happening right now.

    #blameCorbyn
    LOL.

    Oh well. To all those waking up in the UK expecting to watch England bat...
  • As yes, winter is indeed coming.

    We're all set for the familiar Spurs/England double in a day defeat...
  • 2 x 0
    2 x 1
    3 x 4

    #webatdeep
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
    There was a Malaysian GP in the evening in Button's year cancelled because the monsoon rain began half-way through it (as Ecclestone had been repeatedly warned it would). Can't remember any that were cancelled entirely.
    Yep, I remember the Malaysian monsoon and the Canadian race that finished in the dark but don't ever remember a complete washout before. Although if reports are to be believed the storm will put a mere sporting event into perspective. Might even threaten the Mexican GP next weekend.
    I can't think of a complete washout either - there probably hasn't been one, at least since the 1960s.

    The famous Japanese grand prix which was the title decider between Hunt and Lauda in 1976 was extremely wet. Although Lauda had his own reasons for complaining. ISTR there was also an extremely wet race in 1981 or 82, and there is the also-famous Monaco win in the mid-80s where Senna was 'robbed' of his first win, at least according to some.

    Although rain can make races exciting, it can be a little too exciting:
    youtube.com/watch?v=BmOhDtgsPjc
    Yes, Senna's first win that wasn't, in the Monaco rain in I think '84. Thinking back, there was also a race when Prost did one lap then stopped in protest at the organisers allowing the race to go ahead in the rain, but I can't remember when that was, maybe '91 somewhere..?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    England 242 all out - trail by 136
    Eng lose last seven wickets for 36 runs.

    #blameCorbyn
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    Quiet day politically so some O/T book chat:

    I finished my second Patrick Gale book (The Facts of Life) this week and remain a fan, though I understand him a bit better now after reading the afterword. He's gay, and indeed this book is partly about the AIDS epidemic before the treatments got on top of the disease in the West. But it's characteristic that I've read two books by him without really noticing. Gale is a bit more explicit about the occasional gay sex scene than usual, but he covers all kinds of relationships, and where he really scores is acuity of vision and an unsentimental empathy for his characters, even the less apparently likeable ones. Here he is writing about a girl playing on the beach:

    "Her mother drew together some largish pebbles for her to play with. Miriam grasped one with both hands, laughed, dropped it, grasped another, laughed, dropped that. She seemed to be weighing them, divining against some mysterious scale which was the best, which was most quintessentially pebble."

    This is a very minor character at this stage of the book, but one sees the scene and recognises the kind of child behaviour, and when he does the same sort of thing with his major characters it's charming and engrossing, despite a relative paucity of constant drama - big things happen to his characters at about the same speed as for most people in real life, i.e. just now and then.The lack of thrilling grip makes the books a bit harder to pick up than, say, Michael Crichton, but they're also hard to put down. And he's written a dozen more... Why isn't he better known?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Stephen Bush's analysis @TCPoliticalBetting mentioned upthread is very interesting http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be
    In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.
    chestnut said:

    FPT

    notme said:

    The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?

    Alternatively, does it mean that there are a significant number of Labour voters who are sympathetic to The Sun's general representation of society and it's basic values?

    If so, Corbyn's Labour are Donald Ducked.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited October 2015

    Electoral Commission is in the news today.
    Its Deputy CE is Carolyn Hughes who "joined the Electoral Commission in May 2007.
    Her last role was as Director of Finance at Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust. "
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/who-we-are/executive-and-management-team

    "Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust which had long standing financial problems. It was obliged to borrow £27.3 million in Public Dividend Capital in 2006-7"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinchingbrooke_Hospital

    How on Earth does that happen, what qualifies a failed NHS finance director to run elections? It appears that far too many of these public 'servants' can move from failure to failure without ever having to be held accountable for the mess they leave behind.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    "Labour will campaign this weekend over claims that millions of people are missing from the electoral register.
    The government has brought forward a plan to switch voters from "household" to "individual" registration.
    Labour says this will mean a disproportionately high number of its supporters will end up being left off the new rolls.
    The Cabinet Office said the new deadline was simply to ensure voting was as fraud free as possible.
    However, Labour said the move was a "cynical attempt to rig the system"."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34621004
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,327
    @TCPoliticalbetting Private message for you.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Stephen Bush's analysis @TCPoliticalBetting mentioned upthread is very interesting http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be

    In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.
    chestnut said:

    FPT

    notme said:

    The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?

    Alternatively, does it mean that there are a significant number of Labour voters who are sympathetic to The Sun's general representation of society and it's basic values?

    If so, Corbyn's Labour are Donald Ducked.
    If it looks like Militant, and acts like Militant... It's going to take a long time for the moderate Blairites to get their party back.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    AndyJS said:

    "Labour will campaign this weekend over claims that millions of people are missing from the electoral register.
    The government has brought forward a plan to switch voters from "household" to "individual" registration.
    Labour says this will mean a disproportionately high number of its supporters will end up being left off the new rolls.
    The Cabinet Office said the new deadline was simply to ensure voting was as fraud free as possible.
    However, Labour said the move was a "cynical attempt to rig the system"."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34621004

    Well Labour should campaign for voter registration then! It was several fraud cases in mainly Labour strongholds that prompted this legislation in the first place. Deal with it.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Who will be their Nixon?! :wink:

    For Times readers - interesting realpolitik article about Cameron's Chinese deals http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4594729.ece
    Sandpit said:

    Stephen Bush's analysis @TCPoliticalBetting mentioned upthread is very interesting http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/labour-mps-are-worried-about-momentum-should-they-be

    In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.
    chestnut said:

    FPT

    notme said:

    The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?

    Alternatively, does it mean that there are a significant number of Labour voters who are sympathetic to The Sun's general representation of society and it's basic values?

    If so, Corbyn's Labour are Donald Ducked.
    If it looks like Militant, and acts like Militant... It's going to take a long time for the moderate Blairites to get their party back.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Some light lunchtime reading while at the cricket.
    Or - if I want to be political about it - another almighty Scottish police balls up with ten people killed.
    https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-3-2015-g-spao-29-november-2013
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    Sandpit said:


    If it looks like Militant, and acts like Militant... It's going to take a long time for the moderate Blairites to get their party back.

    Have you actually read the article? It explicitly points out that it doesn't look like Militant. There isn't a shortge of people who fancy themselves as Militant-style organisers, but they aren't actually successfully creating a unified assault.

    What it looks like, which might in some ways be more worrying for centrists, is a left-wing shift in the membership - not by means of a small core of dedicated activists spinning out meetings till the moderates go home, but many of the moderates themselves feeling that Labour needs to be more left-wing to have any point to it.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Rather entertaining piece on new releases by the National Archives http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11950438/Spies-rent-boys-and-Ronnie-Kray-why-scandals-just-arent-what-they-used-to-be.html
    What we discover from the Archives about Lord Boothby is a little more salacious. He did not, as long suspected, have a physical relationship with the human pitbull that was Ronnie Kray. But they did “hunt” rent boys together. “Boothby is a kinky fellow,” advised the security services, “and likes to meet odd people, and Ronnie obviously wants to meet people of good social standing, he having the odd background he's got; and, of course, both are queers.”

    Note the way in which homosexuality used to cross class boundaries and make unlikely bedfellows – it brought aristocrats and workers together through shared interest, much like horse-racing still does today. It’s also interesting to observe the change in sexual mores since the 1960s. Back then, the potential scandal was their taste for people of the same gender. Today it would be their preference for the young.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I missed this article the other day about tax credits - it's got some great charts. Well worth a looksee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11942192/Actually-voters-like-welfare-cuts-much-more-than-politicians-and-journalists-think.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Sandpit said:


    If it looks like Militant, and acts like Militant... It's going to take a long time for the moderate Blairites to get their party back.

    Have you actually read the article? It explicitly points out that it doesn't look like Militant. There isn't a shortge of people who fancy themselves as Militant-style organisers, but they aren't actually successfully creating a unified assault.

    What it looks like, which might in some ways be more worrying for centrists, is a left-wing shift in the membership - not by means of a small core of dedicated activists spinning out meetings till the moderates go home, but many of the moderates themselves feeling that Labour needs to be more left-wing to have any point to it.
    Okay Nick I'll read it through again later, but still looks and feels like the moderates have lost their party for a generation. Back to the cricket for me, lunch break nearly over.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Sandpit, saw your post on the previous thread. Might be more tempted to have bets on Toro Rosso and maybe Alonso [I'd say Button, but the Spaniard has the apparently souped-up Honda engine whereas the Briton does not].

    Vettel's handy in the wet as well, although earlier this year Rosberg was the best by miles in wet conditions, only to come in for his pit stop a lap later than the canny Hamilton and Vettel, which cost him the win [I forget where this was].

    Silverstone. A wet race is a good leveller, almost anyone can score points and although the Mercs will still be favourites they will be less so than in the dry. Shame we can't export Dubai's weather to Texas, the storm is threatening to wash out the whole day today, with 12" of rain forecast. :o Does anyone recall the last race cancelled for weather?
    There was a Malaysian GP in the evening in Button's year cancelled because the monsoon rain began half-way through it (as Ecclestone had been repeatedly warned it would). Can't remember any that were cancelled entirely.
    Yep, I remember the Malaysian monsoon and the Canadian race that finished in the dark but don't ever remember a complete washout before. Although if reports are to be believed the storm will put a mere sporting event into perspective. Might even threaten the Mexican GP next weekend.
    I can't think of a complete washout either - there probably hasn't been one, at least since the 1960s.

    The famous Japanese grand prix which was the title decider between Hunt and Lauda in 1976 was extremely wet. Although Lauda had his own reasons for complaining. ISTR there was also an extremely wet race in 1981 or 82, and there is the also-famous Monaco win in the mid-80s where Senna was 'robbed' of his first win, at least according to some.

    Although rain can make races exciting, it can be a little too exciting:
    youtube.com/watch?v=BmOhDtgsPjc
    Yes, Senna's first win that wasn't, in the Monaco rain in I think '84. Thinking back, there was also a race when Prost did one lap then stopped in protest at the organisers allowing the race to go ahead in the rain, but I can't remember when that was, maybe '91 somewhere..?
    I'm fairly sure I remember Prost failing to even complete the parade lap in the rain at Imola (?) while driving for Ferrari - didn't go down well with the locals.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,489
    AndyJS said:

    "Labour will campaign this weekend over claims that millions of people are missing from the electoral register.
    The government has brought forward a plan to switch voters from "household" to "individual" registration.
    Labour says this will mean a disproportionately high number of its supporters will end up being left off the new rolls.
    The Cabinet Office said the new deadline was simply to ensure voting was as fraud free as possible.
    However, Labour said the move was a "cynical attempt to rig the system"."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34621004

    Labour's members should get their supporters to register.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    Sandpit said:


    If it looks like Militant, and acts like Militant... It's going to take a long time for the moderate Blairites to get their party back.

    Have you actually read the article? It explicitly points out that it doesn't look like Militant. There isn't a shortge of people who fancy themselves as Militant-style organisers, but they aren't actually successfully creating a unified assault.

    What it looks like, which might in some ways be more worrying for centrists, is a left-wing shift in the membership - not by means of a small core of dedicated activists spinning out meetings till the moderates go home, but many of the moderates themselves feeling that Labour needs to be more left-wing to have any point to it.
    I agree. It's an organic shift, not an entryist attempted takeover.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    From the conclusion of the New Statesman post:

    'In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.'

    A very dangerous parallel to draw, for three reasons:

    1) The Soviets and Chinese did not 'see off the West for 30 years.' They were able to largely keep its influence at bay within their closed social groups, but at appalling cost to themselves and by severely limiting their ability to influence world events. Khrushchev had to import grain from America and Australia in 1962-63. Had he been willing to open dialogue with the West's scientists, who were making improvements in crop growing technique, albeit with mixed results, he would have been able to feed his population and maybe export more grain to buy more influence in the Third World. Brezhnev was even more close-minded. China continued to be run by steam engines and bicycles because of its unwillingness to import oil until the 1980s. At the same time, the EU's and America's trade links with other countries were gradually enabling it to force more influence on those countries. This could take unexpected forms. It was, for example, the broadcasting of British television, with advertising, in the Soviet Union in the 1980s that revealed just how poor and miserable life in Russia was (it showed the average British dog ate more meat in a week than the average Soviet citizen in a month).

    2) The West, when last I checked, was still going, and the Soviet Union was not. Communist China has survived and thrived by abandoning the economic shibboleths of Communism, although there remain severe political problems. Therefore, whatever the Communist governments of those countries achieved was a very Pyrrhic victory - temporary, and disastrous for their people.

    3) The resulting trouble between China and the USSR (it is not well-known, but this did include actual fighting on the border with Manchuria) was not fully resolved until the time of Gorbachev, by which time China was modernising under Deng and the USSR was collapsing in an undignified heap.

    So if Corbynite Labour is comparable to the Sino-Soviet split we can look forward to the following: thirty years of war between the two wings of Labour; thirty years of desperate pretence that they are superior, while desperately borrowing from their opponents to remain ideologically afloat; rather more than thirty years of Conservative government.

    It's very worrying that none of that seems totally implausible.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2015

    I missed this article the other day about tax credits - it's got some great charts. Well worth a looksee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11942192/Actually-voters-like-welfare-cuts-much-more-than-politicians-and-journalists-think.html

    There was a piece on tax credits on one of the breakfast TV shows yesterday.

    The "hard working" recipient was, we were told, going to be £312 a year worse off.

    £6 a week. They then advised that her tax credits were £247 a week.

    My other half focused on the £247 a week rather than the cut. She's voted Labour all her life, except 2015 when she abstained.
  • ydoethur said:

    From the conclusion of the New Statesman post:

    'In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.'

    A very dangerous parallel to draw, for three reasons:


    2) The West, when last I checked, was still going, and the Soviet Union was not. Communist China has survived and thrived by abandoning the economic shibboleths of Communism, although there remain severe political problems. Therefore, whatever the Communist governments of those countries achieved was a very Pyrrhic victory - temporary, and disastrous for their people.

    3) The resulting trouble between China and the USSR (it is not well-known, but this did include actual fighting on the border with Manchuria) was not fully resolved until the time of Gorbachev, by which time China was modernising under Deng and the USSR was collapsing in an undignified heap.

    So if Corbynite Labour is comparable to the Sino-Soviet split we can look forward to the following: thirty years of war between the two wings of Labour; thirty years of desperate pretence that they are superior, while desperately borrowing from their opponents to remain ideologically afloat; rather more than thirty years of Conservative government.

    It's very worrying that none of that seems totally implausible.

    The only thing that stops me betting on the Tories winning the next four GEs is that I don't expect to be here to collect my winnings...

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Anyone know what's happened in York with the Lord Mayor? Labour's Sonja Crisp has been suspended which seems a bit OTT for complaining about accommodation http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4594932.ece
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    Surely this is Buttler's last game for quite a while. A routine chance dropped when England are so under the cosh after a duck. It just won't do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314


    The only thing that stops me betting on the Tories winning the next four GEs is that I don't expect to be here to collect my winnings...

    Never think it, Innocent Abroad! Double it up with a bet on your beating Methuselah's record for longevity.

    And with that, I am off out for a long drive to enjoy the first day of half term. Have a good weekend everyone.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Get in there Jimmy! Pak 1/1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Miss Plato, there was a bit about it on the local news recently. The claim is she's a prima donna, but I've not really heard enough to make a judgement either way.

    Mr. Chestnut, such claims will likely increase support for the cut.

    If it doesn't happen, the Conservatives may well bang on about Labour and the Lib Dems costing X billion a year and translate that (unfairly but predictably) into Y more doctors and Z more teachers.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    edited October 2015
    On topic I think Hillary is a strong candidate. She has been around the Washington scene for a long time, she has been a senator and Secretary of State, she knows exactly how the White House works and she is very smart.

    She doesn't have the speechmaking capability of her husband or Obama but frankly, as Obama has shown the ability to make a brilliant speech is not a sufficient or even one of the more important characteristics of a President.

    The Republican side is more problematic. Trump is a joke but he is distorting the field. I think Rubio is a strong candidate and if he makes it to the nomination Hillary will have her work cut out although being potentially the first female President, Obama style, should see her home.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349

    ydoethur said:

    From the conclusion of the New Statesman post:

    'In reality, the significant changes in Labour will not be brought about by machinations from either side of “the Sino-Soviet split” in Corbyn’s team, but because the left’s opponents (in this metaphor, the West) remain discredited, defeated and lacking in real leadership. And, just as the People’s Republic and the USSR were able to see off the West for 30 years, the smart money must now be on the ability of Corbyn and the Left to remain in control of the party for the foreseeable future.'

    A very dangerous parallel to draw, for three reasons:


    2) The West, when last I checked, was still going, and the Soviet Union was not. Communist China has survived and thrived by abandoning the economic shibboleths of Communism, although there remain severe political problems. Therefore, whatever the Communist governments of those countries achieved was a very Pyrrhic victory - temporary, and disastrous for their people.

    3) The resulting trouble between China and the USSR (it is not well-known, but this did include actual fighting on the border with Manchuria) was not fully resolved until the time of Gorbachev, by which time China was modernising under Deng and the USSR was collapsing in an undignified heap.

    So if Corbynite Labour is comparable to the Sino-Soviet split we can look forward to the following: thirty years of war between the two wings of Labour; thirty years of desperate pretence that they are superior, while desperately borrowing from their opponents to remain ideologically afloat; rather more than thirty years of Conservative government.

    It's very worrying that none of that seems totally implausible.

    The only thing that stops me betting on the Tories winning the next four GEs is that I don't expect to be here to collect my winnings...

    That's never troubled me .... or more precisely Mrs JackW's shoe fund.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Now it's two lords a'leaping:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34625487
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Sandpit said:

    Some light lunchtime reading while at the cricket.
    Or - if I want to be political about it - another almighty Scottish police balls up with ten people killed.
    https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-3-2015-g-spao-29-november-2013

    I've only skimmed the report, but I'm not sure you can blame the Scottish police force. From the findings section:

    1. The pilot was properly licensed and qualified to conduct the flight, and was well rested.
    2. The helicopter was certified, equipped and maintained in accordance with existing regulations and approved procedures.

    If the pilot was qualified, licensed and rested, and the equipment was fine, I'm not sure it can be put down to an error that the force could have foreseen or prevented.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,327
    edited October 2015
    chestnut said:

    I missed this article the other day about tax credits - it's got some great charts. Well worth a looksee

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11942192/Actually-voters-like-welfare-cuts-much-more-than-politicians-and-journalists-think.html

    There was a piece on tax credits on one of the breakfast TV shows yesterday.

    The "hard working" recipient was, we were told, going to be £312 a year worse off.

    £6 a week. They then advised that her tax credits were £247 a week.

    My other half focused on the £247 a week rather than the cut. She's voted Labour all her life, except 2015 when she abstained.
    £247 a week.

    As it's a tax 'credit' she must be paying alot of tax.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    Another excellent David H article - he could make a decent living writing for a professional magazine for money and we're lucky to have him.

    The only thing I'd add is that even sophisticated observers see people as non-Presidential until they get within a shout of winning, when suddenly they look plausible. David cites Kennedy, I'd also point to Reagan, who in his own terms was hugely successful but the pundits always struggled to take seriously even after he'd won. So although I don't rate Carson either (he's a bright surgeon who has mistakenly strayed into politics), I think it's a mistake to rule him out. People get used to unusual characters.

    Is too late for a fresh challenger? Probably. The organisation and potential funding has to be largely in place by now. It's just about viable to have donors who say they'll only donate big time if you win New Hampshire, but if you don't have an embryonic national network now, you've missed the bus. But all the Republicans except Trump are just one bad debating mistake away from meltdown, so plumping heavily for anyone looks risky - the strategy of laying the favourite du jour but betting on a GOP victory may be the best for the time being.

    Cheers for the compliment. I am considering a career change at the moment so your judgement is particularly valued right now. Do you have any tips on how I'd go about writing professionally?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning.

    It's war on the high seas ! Probably not long to wait for civil wars to erupt on the european mainland.

  • JEO said:

    If Rubio does get the nomination, how will the Democrats attack him? While he may be very conservative, I don't think he can be stereotyped as either a rich corporatist type, a reckless warmongerer, or a religious zealot which are the Democrats go to stereotypes.

    Hillary Clinton might be the one Democrat who can maintain black turnout, given her husband was 'the first black president' and all.

    Attacking Rubio is probably pretty easy. He looks a little too young, too green. And immigration would hurt him in the general. If he's skillful enough to balance between satisfying the red-meat nativists and wooing a good portion of the Hispanic vote, that would be really impressive.

    Like Bill, he's also supposed to have a zipper problem, so that takes away one of Hillary's liabilities.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Another excellent David H article - he could make a decent living writing for a professional magazine for money and we're lucky to have him.

    The only thing I'd add is that even sophisticated observers see people as non-Presidential until they get within a shout of winning, when suddenly they look plausible. David cites Kennedy, I'd also point to Reagan, who in his own terms was hugely successful but the pundits always struggled to take seriously even after he'd won. So although I don't rate Carson either (he's a bright surgeon who has mistakenly strayed into politics), I think it's a mistake to rule him out. People get used to unusual characters.

    Is too late for a fresh challenger? Probably. The organisation and potential funding has to be largely in place by now. It's just about viable to have donors who say they'll only donate big time if you win New Hampshire, but if you don't have an embryonic national network now, you've missed the bus. But all the Republicans except Trump are just one bad debating mistake away from meltdown, so plumping heavily for anyone looks risky - the strategy of laying the favourite du jour but betting on a GOP victory may be the best for the time being.

    Cheers for the compliment. I am considering a career change at the moment so your judgement is particularly valued right now. Do you have any tips on how I'd go about writing professionally?
    First get a good agent, David.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    We have a match! Pak 16/2
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    Sandpit said:

    Some light lunchtime reading while at the cricket.
    Or - if I want to be political about it - another almighty Scottish police balls up with ten people killed.
    https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-3-2015-g-spao-29-november-2013

    I've only skimmed the report, but I'm not sure you can blame the Scottish police force. From the findings section:

    1. The pilot was properly licensed and qualified to conduct the flight, and was well rested.
    2. The helicopter was certified, equipped and maintained in accordance with existing regulations and approved procedures.

    If the pilot was qualified, licensed and rested, and the equipment was fine, I'm not sure it can be put down to an error that the force could have foreseen or prevented.
    He was just showing his bigotry.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Another day another cancer warning. Some of the comments are quite funny one of the best being

    "soon we will see people huddled outside pubs in the rain passing around sausages"

    TBH ...... I thought that was a normal British bar b que in summer.....


    'If people can avoid it, they should': Now cancer expert warns Britons to cut out processed meat altogether amid fears bacon and sausages are as dangerous as cigarettes

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3287174/If-people-avoid-should.html#ixzz3pTXnDlbv
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    JEO said:

    If Rubio does get the nomination, how will the Democrats attack him? While he may be very conservative, I don't think he can be stereotyped as either a rich corporatist type, a reckless warmongerer, or a religious zealot which are the Democrats go to stereotypes.

    Hillary Clinton might be the one Democrat who can maintain black turnout, given her husband was 'the first black president' and all.

    Attacking Rubio is probably pretty easy. He looks a little too young, too green. And immigration would hurt him in the general. If he's skillful enough to balance between satisfying the red-meat nativists and wooing a good portion of the Hispanic vote, that would be really impressive.

    Like Bill, he's also supposed to have a zipper problem, so that takes away one of Hillary's liabilities.
    I hesitate to support Trump, because all those that I begin to support seem to fall at the wayside after I've declared an interest.

    So from a disinterested bystander Trump looks good value and can't lose in the short run.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Moses, well, quite.

    I do wonder if someone's going to point out we do need this 'food' business to live.

    And we're going to die from something someday. Very few people just pass away in their sleep from old age.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    DavidL said:

    On topic I think Hillary is a strong candidate. She has been around the Washington scene for a long time, she has been a senator and Secretary of State, she knows exactly how the White House works and she is very smart.

    She doesn't have the speechmaking capability of her husband or Obama but frankly, as Obama has shown the ability to make a brilliant speech is not a sufficient or even one of the more important characteristics of a President.

    The Republican side is more problematic. Trump is a joke but he is distorting the field. I think Rubio is a strong candidate and if he makes it to the nomination Hillary will have her work cut out although being potentially the first female President, Obama style, should see her home.

    Do you have any polling evidence to back up those assertions?

    If Hillary is such a strong candidate, why are her ratings negative and why have they been heading down in the medium term?

    Likewise, if Trump is a joke, why has he led the Republican field for three months now? Isn't that long enough for one of the multitude of his opponents to score a wounding hit?
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Moses_ said:

    Another day another cancer warning. Some of the comments are quite funny one of the best being

    "soon we will see people huddled outside pubs in the rain passing around sausages"

    TBH ...... I thought that was a normal British bar b que in summer.....


    'If people can avoid it, they should': Now cancer expert warns Britons to cut out processed meat altogether amid fears bacon and sausages are as dangerous as cigarettes

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3287174/If-people-avoid-should.html#ixzz3pTXnDlbv

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was true... I don't eat any of those things, or smoke! #hitbyabuslater
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975

    JEO said:

    If Rubio does get the nomination, how will the Democrats attack him? While he may be very conservative, I don't think he can be stereotyped as either a rich corporatist type, a reckless warmongerer, or a religious zealot which are the Democrats go to stereotypes.

    Hillary Clinton might be the one Democrat who can maintain black turnout, given her husband was 'the first black president' and all.

    Attacking Rubio is probably pretty easy. He looks a little too young, too green. And immigration would hurt him in the general. If he's skillful enough to balance between satisfying the red-meat nativists and wooing a good portion of the Hispanic vote, that would be really impressive.

    Like Bill, he's also supposed to have a zipper problem, so that takes away one of Hillary's liabilities.
    I did think about writing this whole piece as 1992 in reverse and I still think the parallel holds pretty well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Isam, I don't smoke, but meat is delicious, particularly that from a pig. Bacon, ham, gammon, pork, all from one animal! Huzzah for pigs!

    The puritans will get a slap if they try and take my sausage away.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    MikeK said:

    Another excellent David H article - he could make a decent living writing for a professional magazine for money and we're lucky to have him.

    The only thing I'd add is that even sophisticated observers see people as non-Presidential until they get within a shout of winning, when suddenly they look plausible. David cites Kennedy, I'd also point to Reagan, who in his own terms was hugely successful but the pundits always struggled to take seriously even after he'd won. So although I don't rate Carson either (he's a bright surgeon who has mistakenly strayed into politics), I think it's a mistake to rule him out. People get used to unusual characters.

    Is too late for a fresh challenger? Probably. The organisation and potential funding has to be largely in place by now. It's just about viable to have donors who say they'll only donate big time if you win New Hampshire, but if you don't have an embryonic national network now, you've missed the bus. But all the Republicans except Trump are just one bad debating mistake away from meltdown, so plumping heavily for anyone looks risky - the strategy of laying the favourite du jour but betting on a GOP victory may be the best for the time being.

    Cheers for the compliment. I am considering a career change at the moment so your judgement is particularly valued right now. Do you have any tips on how I'd go about writing professionally?
    First get a good agent, David.
    Nick was talking about writing for magazines - is that the same process?

    And how does one go about getting a good agent?

    Help!
Sign In or Register to comment.