Every single voodoo twitter poll has it for Trump.
well thats voodo twitter polls for you. the network focus groups all say clinton
I haven't and wont watch the debates between an incompetent harridan and a posturing charlatan.
But the voodoo polls kept going for Brexit while the networks kept saying Remain.
Whether history repeats we don't know yet.
The actual flipping polls said Leave. People are acting like every fucking poll had a 20 point Remain lead. By this stage of Brexit the last month of polls were split almost 50/50 between leave and remain leads.
Precisely. The Brexiteers are recasting their pre vote despair that maybe 3 out of every 5 polls wasn't great for Leave into 'the polls were all wrong!'
One problem was that polling companies didn't believe their own figures, so kept adjusting them to favour Remain.
Andrew Cooper provided me with much amusement.
On the one hand he was claiming to be an objective pollster, on the other hand his Twitter feed was wall to wall propaganda for Remain.
Peter Kellner was similarly compromised but avoided making quite such a fool of himself.
The adjustments made to the final Populus poll seem to have involved a good deal of wishful thinking.
It maybe heresy on this site to say so, but are the polls worth anything? The polling companies, it would appear, get their results from their survey and then adjust them until they produce the outcome the company thinks correct. They could save a fortune by cutting out the actual survey and just releasing some figures that they have made up.
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Sitting in a bar in NYC, Trump came across better than reported. His language is much more down to Earth and is compelling to watch. Clinton had polish, one or two good put downs but tended to ramble.
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
Paul Mason tweets: Labour hierarchy breaking every rule to keep party under neoliberal/millionaire control. We need own structures/networks until this stops
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Better than that, I can, and have reserved it on line!!
Sitting in a bar in NYC, Trump came across better than reported. His language is much more down to Earth and is compelling to watch. Clinton had polish, one or two good put downs but tended to ramble.
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
Agreed. Trump is personable while Mrs Clinton is insupportable. Four more years of her at large is too much for the American soul.
Most of that article reads like a nasty hatchet job on the policeman concerned. It does however say that the suspect was seen brandishing what looked like a gun and a marajuana joint before he was questioned.
It's a complicated social problem in the US, politicians and media trying to make sound bites out of it really isn't helping at all.
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
Sitting in a bar in NYC, Trump came across better than reported. His language is much more down to Earth and is compelling to watch. Clinton had polish, one or two good put downs but tended to ramble.
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
Agreed. Trump is personable while Mrs Clinton is insupportable. Four more years of her at large is too much for the American soul.
Anyone who thinks Trump is personable lacks political judgement
Most of that article reads like a nasty hatchet job on the policeman concerned. It does however say that the suspect was seen brandishing what looked like a gun and a marajuana joint before he was questioned.
It's a complicated social problem in the US, politicians and media trying to make sound bites out of it really isn't helping at all.
Hatchet job on police or hatchet job on the victim?
The Daily Mail seems to be doing both!
At the time that Scott was shot the police did not know who he was.
Sitting in a bar in NYC, Trump came across better than reported. His language is much more down to Earth and is compelling to watch. Clinton had polish, one or two good put downs but tended to ramble.
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
Agreed. Trump is personable while Mrs Clinton is insupportable. Four more years of her at large is too much for the American soul.
Anyone who thinks Trump is personable lacks political judgement
The word political appears to be utterly superfluous in your post?
This is how bad it is for Labour, when in the middle of their conference people like William Hague are giving genuinely sensible advice to their more moderate members.
"And then – here comes the hard bit – they need leaders and a philosophy. No political movement can succeed without those two attributes. So if Yvette Cooper, or Dan Jarvis, or even David Miliband, are ever going to step forward to lead an alternative vision of what a Left-wing party is for in the 21st century, they will need to do so now.
"Such leaders need to write the books, pen the pamphlets, and make the big speeches that show there is some point in being a moderate, centre-Left leader. They need to say what they would do about combining the benefits of globalisation with looking after the people who can miss out on its riches. They should be showing what a leader of the opposition could be saying if their objective was to be prime minister rather than to entrench a faction in permanent control of a great party"
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
Sitting in a bar in NYC, Trump came across better than reported. His language is much more down to Earth and is compelling to watch. Clinton had polish, one or two good put downs but tended to ramble.
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
Agreed. Trump is personable while Mrs Clinton is insupportable. Four more years of her at large is too much for the American soul.
Anyone who thinks Trump is personable lacks political judgement
You're a definite candidate for the PB poster with the worst political judgement. You're notoriously mistaken in your prognostications.
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
The current Trump view is that Trump won because he didn't attack Hillary personally over Bill Clinton.
It has to be said, Conway et al do not look massively happy at spouting that. Looking at the surrogates body language, the trump campaign certainly don't feel it's a win
Miss Vance, isn't Jezbollah a millionaire? Can't imagine Mason's poor either.
If you include the value of his MP's pension pot - very easily......house reputedly worth £650,000, or three times the UK average.....but no, Jeremy is not rich.....
I don't imagine Paul Mason was paid buttons by either the BBC or Channel 4
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Better than that, I can, and have reserved it on line!!
I hope you enjoy the book and find it as fascinating as I did. Do please let me know what you think of it, Mr. Cole.
Little things like the line of springs you mention I think have shaped England more than we often realise. I find it fascinating.
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Better than that, I can, and have reserved it on line!!
I hope you enjoy the book and find it as fascinating as I did. Do please let me know what you think of it, Mr. Cole.
Little things like the line of springs you mention I think have shaped England more than we often realise. I find it fascinating.
Indeed; I agree. I sometimes wonder why I did science and not arts (history, Latin) at school. Parental pressure and expectation I suspect.
Others may have already seen this but the Panelbase tables are up from their recent Scottish Polling and it appears that there was a glitch in the data weighting such that some of the figures differ from those published in the Sunday Times.
Support for independence is now stated at 47% not 48%. And the WM voting intentions now appear to be.
SNP - 47% Con - 24% Labour 16% Lib Dem - 5% Others - 7%
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
Far better to let others throw dirt at the moderator?
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
Is ARSE4US still out of commission? (Presumably while running for the Turner prize.)
My US betting position looking somewhat rosier than my RBS punt... only investment I'm actually down on this year (Though GSK up) - which is ... annoying.
MikeK : "I must be totally naive as I didn't know, or forgot, about the Wm. Hill £100 prize for first place. How do I collect it?"
You don't collect it as such .... life's not that simple. First you need to open an online account with Hills. You can then use this to place a free single bet of £100 of your choice (I can advise for a small fee) and if you win you collect, along with your £100 stake. If you lose, then it's goodnight Vienna. Hopefully someone in the Hills organisation will remember when this prize was first set up. Good luck!
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Better than that, I can, and have reserved it on line!!
I hope you enjoy the book and find it as fascinating as I did. Do please let me know what you think of it, Mr. Cole.
Little things like the line of springs you mention I think have shaped England more than we often realise. I find it fascinating.
Indeed; I agree. I sometimes wonder why I did science and not arts (history, Latin) at school. Parental pressure and expectation I suspect.
Me too. I was pushed into the science and mathematics route at the age of 13 and didn't know any better. However, one of the great things about the increasing life expectancy is that we can in our later years pick up on those areas we missed the first time around. Life-long learning they call it, and on that note I am off back to the 12th century for the afternoon.
''Agreed. Trump is personable while Mrs Clinton is insupportable. Four more years of her at large is too much for the American soul.''
Liberal elite asks liberal elite and finds out everybody thinks Trump performed badly shock.
The squealing if Trump goes further ahead after this will be too delicious.
What we need to bear in mind is that the Americans are electing the same person to three different roles, and may apply different judgement to each role. 1) head of government 2) head of state (is the candidate "presidential"?) 3) commander in chief (will the candidate start world war 3 on a whim?)
Trump's problems seem from this side of the Atlantic to be based around (2) and (3) and based on his more restrained performance last night compared with the GOP debates, Trump thinks so too.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
According to the polls I've seen ( apart from the Clinton News Network outlier ) he won the debate handily. No wonder he's happy with the ref.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
MikeK : "I must be totally naive as I didn't know, or forgot, about the Wm. Hill £100 prize for first place. How do I collect it?"
You don't collect it as such .... life's not that simple. First you need to open an online account with Hills. You can then use this to place a free single bet of £100 of your choice (I can advise for a small fee) and if you win you collect, along with your £100 stake. If you lose, then it's goodnight Vienna. Hopefully someone in the Hills organisation will remember when this prize was first set up. Good luck!
Depends, not clear if it is a Stake returned or a Stake not returned free bet, the potential strategies are different for each.
Many thanks for the recommendation of that book, I have ordered my copy.
For any that are interested in the subject of how England has developed from prehistoric times may I recommend the book "Foundation" by Peter Ackroyd. As always with Ackroyd, it is an easy read but very well researched. Amongst other things, Ackroyd looks at the stability of English communities over the millennia and demonstrates how settlements, places of worship, roads, even the shape of fields are commonly in the same places or still follow the same lines as they did in the Bronze Age and even beyond.
N.B. Because of the maps and drawings Foundation is not suitable for Kindle.
I shall be down to the library as soon as it opens. Stane Street runs thropugh this town and one of the features of it, around here anyway, is that it runs just below where an ice age “push” stopped and hence there is a line of springs providing fresh water.
Better than that, I can, and have reserved it on line!!
I hope you enjoy the book and find it as fascinating as I did. Do please let me know what you think of it, Mr. Cole.
Little things like the line of springs you mention I think have shaped England more than we often realise. I find it fascinating.
Indeed; I agree. I sometimes wonder why I did science and not arts (history, Latin) at school. Parental pressure and expectation I suspect.
Me too. I was pushed into the science and mathematics route at the age of 13 and didn't know any better. However, one of the great things about the increasing life expectancy is that we can in our later years pick up on those areas we missed the first time around. Life-long learning they call it, and on that note I am off back to the 12th century for the afternoon.
One of the odder features of Labour's academies (and as embraced and extended to free schools by Michael Gove) is the idea that children (or their parents) can identify specialisation at the age of 11, never mind 13 or 15, and so choose the science academy or the languages academy.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Giuliani would certainly be up for the job. On listening to him last night/this am I hadn't realised quite how full-on, spittle flecked zoomer he had gone; he now exists to make Trump look reasonable and restrained.
Paul Mason tweets: Labour hierarchy breaking every rule to keep party under neoliberal/millionaire control. We need own structures/networks until this stops
(sure this isn't a parody account? - ed.)
The way things have turned out it is impossible to parody the Labour party anymore.
According to the polls I've seen ( apart from the Clinton News Network outlier ) he won the debate handily. No wonder he's happy with the ref.
The only non voodoo polls show a clear win for Clinton. The high margin on the CNN poll is partly accounted for by the higher number of Dems polled as the network indicated. Further the focus groups indicate an indifferent performance by Trump.
A significant number of GOP strategists have also given the debate to Clinton.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Giuliani would certainly be up for the job. On listening to him last night/this am I hadn't realised how full-on, spittle flecked zoomer he had gone; he now exists to make Trump look reasonable and restrained.
Or Christie. One of those two IMO will release a statement about the unfair nature of the questions and ask that the next debate will be more even handed and ask Hillary the hard questions about emails, Benghazi, her foundation's possible conflict of interest with her job as SoS etc...
It puts the focus on the moderation and ensures next time around that those questions are either asked, or if they aren't they can really lay into the questions and call it an establishment fix.
It's what I would do if I were Trump's campaign manager.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Attacking the moderator is not a smart play and Team Donald will want to close down the news cycle on this debate quickly.
@FraserNelson: Labour member gets on stage to denounce "Parliamentarians who are not accountable to this movement" - i.e., the MPs. Extraordinary. #Lab16
Whilst MPs are voted for by the registered electorate in the constituency. in safe Labour seats the MP is effectively chosen by the local Labour party members.
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
They might be able to use it to rile up the base and raise money but it doesn't work for waverers. They can't run that narrative without talking about how they lost.
MikeK : "I must be totally naive as I didn't know, or forgot, about the Wm. Hill £100 prize for first place. How do I collect it?"
You don't collect it as such .... life's not that simple. First you need to open an online account with Hills. You can then use this to place a free single bet of £100 of your choice (I can advise for a small fee) and if you win you collect, along with your £100 stake. If you lose, then it's goodnight Vienna. Hopefully someone in the Hills organisation will remember when this prize was first set up. Good luck!
Depends, not clear if it is a Stake returned or a Stake not returned free bet, the potential strategies are different for each.
When I was a prizewinner in a similar PB competition also sponsored by Hills, it was made clear that the Stake money would be included, along with any winnings. Unfortunately ..... guess what?
Mr. Trump said the Federal Reserve is “doing political things” by holding interest rates at a low level. He charged that the Fed would raise rates as soon as Mr. Obama left office.
This is a baseless accusation. The Fed has held borrowing costs at historically low levels since the financial crisis to encourage economic growth. Some Fed officials would like to raise rates slightly. Some want to wait a little longer. But Fed officials are uniform in dismissing the idea that politics is playing a role in this debate, and outside experts see no evidence that the Fed is misleading the public.
In attacking the Fed, Mr. Trump is plowing across a line that presidential candidates and presidents have observed for the past several decades. There has been a bipartisan consensus that central banks operate most effectively when they are shielded from short-term political pressures. Indeed, President Richard M. Nixon’s insistence that the Fed should not raise rates in the early 1970s played a role in unleashing a long era of inflation — and in convincing his successors that it was better to leave the Fed to its technocratic devices.
@FraserNelson: Labour member gets on stage to denounce "Parliamentarians who are not accountable to this movement" - i.e., the MPs. Extraordinary. #Lab16
Whilst MPs are voted for by the registered electorate in the constituency. in safe Labour seats the MP is effectively chosen by the local Labour party members.
"accountable" is another code word. Like "democracy", as we discussed downthread. Chilling.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Attacking the moderator is not a smart play and Team Donald will want to close down the news cycle on this debate quickly.
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
They might be able to use it to rile up the base and raise money but it doesn't work for waverers. They can't run that narrative without talking about how they lost.
Talking about how they have been cheated and how next time they will ensure it doesn't happen. It's about feeding the sense of injustice.
According to Sky News, Big Sam is reported this morning as being "deeply embarrassed" - presumably on account of having been found out, although presumably not sufficiently deeply embarrassed to do the decent thing and fall on his sword?
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
According to the polls I've seen ( apart from the Clinton News Network outlier ) he won the debate handily. No wonder he's happy with the ref.
PPP Polls has it 51-40 to Clinton
What other non Internet voodoo poll swarmed by /pol/ redditors have you seen?
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
I said last night that I thought it likely that the betting markets would over-react. I'm not so sure about that this morning. Trump seems to have made some serious mistakes in the debate. In particular, if the Clinton campaign can pick up and successfully exploit his comments on tax and establish a perception that he thinks 'only little people pay taxes', then it may well be a clincher.
Yes, I'd agree with that analysis Richard. I don't think Hillary landed the knockout punch last night despite Trump's dire performance. But the experience may be useful for her medium term insofar as it has given her new negative material to work with.
Yes, the only issue I can see is the unfair questioning angle from the Trump side. If they can successfully land that on the moderator it will have been a successful evening for Trump. His comments on tax were extremely poorly judged IMO but may be overshadowed by howls of an establishment stitch up on the questions.
He might have reason to complain but it doesn't help him, he's not running against the moderator.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
They might be able to use it to rile up the base and raise money but it doesn't work for waverers. They can't run that narrative without talking about how they lost.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Giuliani would certainly be up for the job. On listening to him last night/this am I hadn't realised how full-on, spittle flecked zoomer he had gone; he now exists to make Trump look reasonable and restrained.
Or Christie. One of those two IMO will release a statement about the unfair nature of the questions and ask that the next debate will be more even handed and ask Hillary the hard questions about emails, Benghazi, her foundation's possible conflict of interest with her job as SoS etc...
It puts the focus on the moderation and ensures next time around that those questions are either asked, or if they aren't they can really lay into the questions and call it an establishment fix.
It's what I would do if I were Trump's campaign manager.
Absolutely. Especially reeling off a list of Hillary's scandals. Trump himself should really start doing his best statesman impression right about now, and drop the annoying habit of interrupting himself half way through a sentence which he had last night.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Attacking the moderator is not a smart play and Team Donald will want to close down the news cycle on this debate quickly.
Whatever Trump is paying Conway it isn't enough. She's amazing at deflecting and presenting Donald's behaviour as reasonable.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
Yes, I read between the lines too. It's probably why the Telegraph started with Big Sam, and the FA lawyers now probably have a tip off as to what's coming later in the week.
Not good for football, but much better that it be out in the open. Well done to the DT.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
It won't be him that makes the play.
Attacking the moderator is not a smart play and Team Donald will want to close down the news cycle on this debate quickly.
Whatever Trump is paying Conway it isn't enough. She's amazing at deflecting and presenting Donald's behaviour as reasonable.
She specifically has said that the moderator was fine
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
Yes, I read between the lines too. It's probably why the Telegraph started with Big Sam, and the FA lawyers now probably have a tip off as to what's coming later in the week.
Not good for football, but much better that it be out in the open. Well done to the DT.
tbh (and I am no fan of BFS) the Telegraph tape seemed a bit of a damp squib where he said it was easy to get round the rules but the only hard evidence seemed to show he'd followed them.
Most of that article reads like a nasty hatchet job on the policeman concerned. It does however say that the suspect was seen brandishing what looked like a gun and a marajuana joint before he was questioned.
It's a complicated social problem in the US, politicians and media trying to make sound bites out of it really isn't helping at all.
Hatchet job on police or hatchet job on the victim?
The Daily Mail seems to be doing both!
At the time that Scott was shot the police did not know who he was.
Surely doesn't matter.
The background is evidence that supports the possibility that he might have been wielding a gun (the police case) and reduces the probability that it was a book (the mother's case).
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
Trump thinks he won the debate, he and his team have praised the moderators. What's up with you ?
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
Trump thinks he won the debate, he and his team have praised the moderators. What's up with you ?
Trump has to say he won. Watch the debate, he didn't and he must know that.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
No doubt with a whopping payoff.
If the FA has smart lawyers, there should be clauses in his contract that allows for early termination without penalties for bringing his role into disrepute.
Clearly the betting market believes Big Sam's on his way out and quite rightly imho - last night when the news broke there was only one bookie offering a "Next England Manager" market, now there are around 7 or 8. Surprisingly Alan Pardew is the current favourite. Personally I give him no chance preferring either Gareth Southgate if it's to be an Englishman or Jurgen Klinsman if the FA take a broader approach ... but then what do I know?
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
Trump thinks he won the debate, he and his team have praised the moderators. What's up with you ?
Donald has been retweeting voodoo polls from The Drudge Report and Breitbart to make himself feel better. Sad.
Clearly the betting market believes Big Sam's on his way out and quite rightly imho - last night when the news broke there was only one bookie offering a "Next England Manager" market, now there are around 7 or 8. Surprisingly Alan Pardew is the current favourite. Personally I give him no chance preferring either Gareth Southgate if it's to be an Englishman or Jurgen Klinsman if the FA take a broader approach ... but then what do I know?
What you don't know is who else is on the Telegraph's list.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
No doubt with a whopping payoff.
Bloody better not be. If there's no disrepute clause in the England manager's contract, after all the previous scandals, then someone from the FA should be resigning.
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
Trump thinks he won the debate, he and his team have praised the moderators. What's up with you ?
Trump thinks he won the debate shocker ....
I suggest you read the prior posts - MaxPB believes a good strategy is for Team Donald to attack the moderator. I disagree. Although Rudy Giuliani thinks not and suggested that Trump skip the next two debates.
Clearly the betting market believes Big Sam's on his way out and quite rightly imho - last night when the news broke there was only one bookie offering a "Next England Manager" market, now there are around 7 or 8. Surprisingly Alan Pardew is the current favourite. Personally I give him no chance preferring either Gareth Southgate if it's to be an Englishman or Jurgen Klinsman if the FA take a broader approach ... but then what do I know?
How many times does Southgate have to say 'No' :-)
Paul Mason tweets: Labour hierarchy breaking every rule to keep party under neoliberal/millionaire control. We need own structures/networks until this stops
(sure this isn't a parody account? - ed.)
The way things have turned out it is impossible to parody the Labour party anymore.
How rich are these people again?
A - Paul Mason B - John MaoDonnell C - Jeremy Corbyn D - Dianne Abbott E - Jon Lansman
Mason is doing a really good job of impersonating a very stupid plank person.
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
No doubt with a whopping payoff.
If the FA has smart lawyers, there should be clauses in his contract that allows for early termination without penalties for bringing his role into disrepute.
And if the FA has smart directors, it will ignore the lawyers. The reason for big payoffs isn't to compensate the guy they've sacked but to attract the next manager.
No, but he is running against the establishment, of which the moderator and Clinton are a part. As I said, he didn't have a good night by the looks of things and the clips I've seen, but if the Trump camp are able to switch the focus onto the moderator and the difference in questioning then they will call it a win. It feeds into their narrative of Trump vs the world.
A difficult narrative for Trump as he said after that the moderator "did great" and was "very fair".
According to the polls I've seen ( apart from the Clinton News Network outlier ) he won the debate handily. No wonder he's happy with the ref.
PPP Polls has it 51-40 to Clinton
What other non Internet voodoo poll swarmed by /pol/ redditors have you seen?
The Times are reporting Sam Allardyce has been told to report to Wembley where he is set to be sacked.
Good. Hope they put a disrepute clause in his contract though.
If I read between the lines correctly, The FA knows there's a shit storm heading with further revelations from The Telegraph this week, which will lead them to charge other managers with offences, and they cannot do that without punishing their most high profile employee.
No doubt with a whopping payoff.
If the FA has smart lawyers, there should be clauses in his contract that allows for early termination without penalties for bringing his role into disrepute.
And if the FA has smart directors, it will ignore the lawyers. The reason for big payoffs isn't to compensate the guy they've sacked but to attract the next manager.
There's a big difference between sacking the guy for the crap appearing on the back pages of the newspaper, and sacking him for the crap appearing on the front pages.
Clearly the betting market believes Big Sam's on his way out and quite rightly imho - last night when the news broke there was only one bookie offering a "Next England Manager" market, now there are around 7 or 8. Surprisingly Alan Pardew is the current favourite. Personally I give him no chance preferring either Gareth Southgate if it's to be an Englishman or Jurgen Klinsman if the FA take a broader approach ... but then what do I know?
What you don't know is who else is on the Telegraph's list.
Hillary won the debate. We know that but who is surprised by it? The question is whether it has persuaded any voters to switch. The only attack that seemed like it might was on Trump's tax returns, where Hillary listed a number of possible explanations, each one presumably tailored to a different demographic.
On the radio it sounded like a Clinton walkover. Having now seen big chunks of it on TV, still a Clinton win but it doesn't seem quite so decisive, which is interesting. There is something about Trump's brazen confidence that allows him to at least partly get away with the outrageous when you see him saying it, rather than just hearing the ridiculous words.
In a traditional election cycle it might not be, if the Trump camp can play into a sense of injustice among his supporters and people sympathetic to his goals then it is the right thing to do. Trump needs to fire up his base and making it into a Trump vs the establishment is the best way to do it. Lumping the moderator in with Hillary's campaign will definitely help, he's already started by criticising the mic and the audio feed.
The base is not enough for Trump. He has to appeal to swing voters in the swing states and crying foul against the moderators is not the way to go. Really lame politics.
Trump thinks he won the debate, he and his team have praised the moderators. What's up with you ?
Trump thinks he won the debate shocker ....
I suggest you read the prior posts - MaxPB believes a good strategy is for Team Donald to attack the moderator. I disagree. Although Rudy Giuliani thinks not and suggested that Trump skip the next two debates.
That would go down well with the 83% of Americans who think he should do all 3.
Indeed; I agree. I sometimes wonder why I did science and not arts (history, Latin) at school. Parental pressure and expectation I suspect.
Me too. I was pushed into the science and mathematics route at the age of 13 and didn't know any better. However, one of the great things about the increasing life expectancy is that we can in our later years pick up on those areas we missed the first time around. Life-long learning they call it, and on that note I am off back to the 12th century for the afternoon.
I never wonder that question. I wonder why we couldn't do as many subjects as we liked at school. But then I remember - ah, yes! No computers and no internet, having to rely on teachers for information and libraries for books. I have never regretted studying science formally and filling in the gaps of arts, languages and history myself. And making learning a life-long hobby.
Now thanks to Cookie and Hurstllama I have two more books to clutter the house for the effort of just two clicks of the trackpad. I am particularly looking forward to the Oppenheimer book - my (American) wife is constantly telling me how all the British/Irish are genetically identical and we are silly to hang on to our home country identities.
BTW and FWIW, for those interested in anecdotal evidence of a US citizen's response to the debate, the wife (who is anyone but Trump) fell asleep after 40 minutes, was surprised Trump held it together and hated Hillary more after the debate than before. One element in Hillary's favour - she intends to vote Johnson, unless it's close, in which case she will hold her nose and vote Hillary.
From Labour List: " Today’s package of rule changes has been voted through by delegates, cheering the Corbynsceptic elements in the party. Kezia Dugdale has announced that she personally will take up the place reserved on the NEC for Scottish Labour."
Probably the most significant decision that the conference will take this week.
Comments
It felt like a non politician taking on a pro. I can't see that hurting Trump.
(sure this isn't a parody account? - ed.)
Miss Vance, isn't Jezbollah a millionaire? Can't imagine Mason's poor either.
It's a complicated social problem in the US, politicians and media trying to make sound bites out of it really isn't helping at all.
Liberal elite asks liberal elite and finds out everybody thinks Trump performed badly shock.
The squealing if Trump goes further ahead after this will be too delicious.
The Daily Mail seems to be doing both!
At the time that Scott was shot the police did not know who he was.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/moderate-labour-rebels-have-been-utterly-hopeless-they-should-fo/
"And then – here comes the hard bit – they need leaders and a philosophy. No political movement can succeed without those two attributes. So if Yvette Cooper, or Dan Jarvis, or even David Miliband, are ever going to step forward to lead an alternative vision of what a Left-wing party is for in the 21st century, they will need to do so now.
"Such leaders need to write the books, pen the pamphlets, and make the big speeches that show there is some point in being a moderate, centre-Left leader. They need to say what they would do about combining the benefits of globalisation with looking after the people who can miss out on its riches. They should be showing what a leader of the opposition could be saying if their objective was to be prime minister rather than to entrench a faction in permanent control of a great party"
Here is the Eurozone's flagship bank, about to go under, with interest rates already through the floor and the economy stalled.
Yeah, whatever.
It is quite extraordinary. Then again it goes completely against the remainer narrative I suppose.
It has to be said, Conway et al do not look massively happy at spouting that. Looking at the surrogates body language, the trump campaign certainly don't feel it's a win
I don't imagine Paul Mason was paid buttons by either the BBC or Channel 4
Little things like the line of springs you mention I think have shaped England more than we often realise. I find it fascinating.
Support for independence is now stated at 47% not 48%. And the WM voting intentions now appear to be.
SNP - 47%
Con - 24%
Labour 16%
Lib Dem - 5%
Others - 7%
Can't win them all I guess !
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/fact-check-debate.html
You don't collect it as such .... life's not that simple. First you need to open an online account with Hills. You can then use this to place a free single bet of £100 of your choice (I can advise for a small fee) and if you win you collect, along with your £100 stake. If you lose, then it's goodnight Vienna. Hopefully someone in the Hills organisation will remember when this prize was first set up. Good luck!
1) head of government
2) head of state (is the candidate "presidential"?)
3) commander in chief (will the candidate start world war 3 on a whim?)
Trump's problems seem from this side of the Atlantic to be based around (2) and (3) and based on his more restrained performance last night compared with the GOP debates, Trump thinks so too.
No need for a new news source.
The people's daily, the Morning Star, is already the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world, published six days a week.
The way things have turned out it is impossible to parody the Labour party anymore.
A significant number of GOP strategists have also given the debate to Clinton.
It puts the focus on the moderation and ensures next time around that those questions are either asked, or if they aren't they can really lay into the questions and call it an establishment fix.
It's what I would do if I were Trump's campaign manager.
'there were no sniffles'
'the mic was faulty on purpose'
'the beauty paegent contestant was fat with an attitude'
Oh dear. calling other women fat may not help with the perception of him being a misogynist
Whilst MPs are voted for by the registered electorate in the constituency. in safe Labour seats the MP is effectively chosen by the local Labour party members.
BBC2 dp show - Farage from Brussels. Back drop pic has a bug crawling across it.
On Mr. Trump and the Federal Reserve.
Mr. Trump said the Federal Reserve is “doing political things” by holding interest rates at a low level. He charged that the Fed would raise rates as soon as Mr. Obama left office.
This is a baseless accusation. The Fed has held borrowing costs at historically low levels since the financial crisis to encourage economic growth. Some Fed officials would like to raise rates slightly. Some want to wait a little longer. But Fed officials are uniform in dismissing the idea that politics is playing a role in this debate, and outside experts see no evidence that the Fed is misleading the public.
In attacking the Fed, Mr. Trump is plowing across a line that presidential candidates and presidents have observed for the past several decades. There has been a bipartisan consensus that central banks operate most effectively when they are shielded from short-term political pressures. Indeed, President Richard M. Nixon’s insistence that the Fed should not raise rates in the early 1970s played a role in unleashing a long era of inflation — and in convincing his successors that it was better to leave the Fed to its technocratic devices.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/09/will-and-grace-reunion?mbid=social_twitter
What other non Internet voodoo poll swarmed by /pol/ redditors have you seen?
He rated Clinton C+ and said he is too modest to rate himself.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-tax-returns-explained-wont-release-hiding-bombshell-a7324306.html
Sadly yes. I'm not in a position to devote the time. I've some further "medical interventions" shortly followed by some significant down time.
Not great presently but hey ho ....
Not good for football, but much better that it be out in the open. Well done to the DT.
The background is evidence that supports the possibility that he might have been wielding a gun (the police case) and reduces the probability that it was a book (the mother's case).
We still don't know the facts.
Surprisingly Alan Pardew is the current favourite. Personally I give him no chance preferring either Gareth Southgate if it's to be an Englishman or Jurgen Klinsman if the FA take a broader approach ... but then what do I know?
I suggest you read the prior posts - MaxPB believes a good strategy is for Team Donald to attack the moderator. I disagree. Although Rudy Giuliani thinks not and suggested that Trump skip the next two debates.
A - Paul Mason
B - John MaoDonnell
C - Jeremy Corbyn
D - Dianne Abbott
E - Jon Lansman
Mason is doing a really good job of impersonating a very stupid plank person.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_PostDebatePoll_92616.pdf
It shows the stark divide between men and women, and between black and white. No surprise there.
But what interested me was that the independents (who are going to decide this) broke decisively for Clinton. See pages 5 and 6.
Katy Perry goes nude for Hillary Clinton as US presidential election race heats up
Perry, 31, has publicly endorsed the democratic nominee on multiple occasions in the past
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/katy-perry-goes-nude-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-race-heats-1583522
NEW THREAD
Now thanks to Cookie and Hurstllama I have two more books to clutter the house for the effort of just two clicks of the trackpad. I am particularly looking forward to the Oppenheimer book - my (American) wife is constantly telling me how all the British/Irish are genetically identical and we are silly to hang on to our home country identities.
BTW and FWIW, for those interested in anecdotal evidence of a US citizen's response to the debate, the wife (who is anyone but Trump) fell asleep after 40 minutes, was surprised Trump held it together and hated Hillary more after the debate than before. One element in Hillary's favour - she intends to vote Johnson, unless it's close, in which case she will hold her nose and vote Hillary.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate
" Today’s package of rule changes has been voted through by delegates, cheering the Corbynsceptic elements in the party. Kezia Dugdale has announced that she personally will take up the place reserved on the NEC for Scottish Labour."
Probably the most significant decision that the conference will take this week.