politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trumpgate could gift the Democrats the jackpot

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trumpgate could gift the Democrats the jackpot

Some things just sound better in German. pic.twitter.com/GNjF5beLum

Read the full story here

tlg86

First. And I actually read the article!

JosiasJessop

Damn! Missed a first!

Was reading a paper on procedural generation instead ... At least, trying to read it.

Losing both houses to the Dems might be the shock the GOP need.

CarlottaVance

Third! Like SLAB....

Philip_Thompson

When did the Dems last control their House?

OldKingCole

Fifth. Like UKIP next time. If they can pull themselves together.

Interesting article. Realistic, too, and one hopes provides a glimpse of the future.

tlg86

Philip_Thompson said:

When did the Dems last control their House?

2008. They lost control of the House in 2010.

Sean_F

That two-year window would be vital for Democrats, as (assuming Clinton wins) the roof will fall in on Senate Democrats in the 2018 mid-terms, where they're defending 24 out of 32 seats.

Pong

Yeah, it looks pretty dire for the GOP - although on current polling they'll keep the house/senate.

Anyway, what's happened to wikileaks? Directing hacks and then offering bounties is seriously not ok;

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-offers-award-for-LabourLeaks.html

JenS

What about split ticketing? The more certain it appears that an unpopular Clinton wins the presidency, the more likely that voters will want to give the Republicans counterbalancing votes downticket surely?

Sean_F

The GOP are in a bind. Lose, and a left wing President has the chance has the chance to ram through all kinds of legislation, and pack the Supreme Court in that two year gap. But a Trump Presidency would probably be an extinction event for the party.

ToryJim

Pong said:

Yeah, it looks pretty dire for the GOP - although on current polling they'll keep the house/senate.

Anyway, what's happened to wikileaks? Directing hacks and then offering bounties is seriously not ok;

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-offers-award-for-LabourLeaks.html

All power corrupts etc

Sean_F

JenS said:

What about split ticketing? The more certain it appears that an unpopular Clinton wins the presidency, the more likely that voters will want to give the Republicans counterbalancing votes downticket surely?

Split-ticketing has become less common, but this could be a year in which it features a lot. It's notable that all the incumbent Republican Senators are polling much better than Trump is, in their States. The risk for Republicans is that their voters stay at home. It's actually far better for the party if they vote Clinton with gritted teeth (or Johnson) and then Republican down-ballot.

JackW

Florida - PPP - Sample 984 - 12-13 Oct

Clinton 49 .. Trump 44

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_FL_104161.pdf

JennyFreeman

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

CarlottaVance

JosiasJessop said:

Damn! Missed a first!

Was reading a paper on procedural generation instead ... At least, trying to read it.

Losing both houses to the Dems might be the shock the GOP need.

I fear the 'one more heave' school of thought may yet prevail - unless its a total meltdown...

Monksfield

The basic message from the US is much the same as here. We are in an age of retail politics and people want a broader choice. The US system has been able to withstand this to a point by being more flexible, less whipped, than the UK - There's more overlap within the brands. But now folk want change.

JackW

National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Sample 2,869 - 14 Oct

Clinton 44.2 .. Trump 43.9

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

SouthamObserver

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

CarlottaVance

Austerity Osborne lost EURef, not Immigration May;

Our regressions allow for a counterfactual analysis. We find that relatively modest reductions in fiscal cuts at the local authority level (less than £50 per person) may have been sufficient to lead to the opposite referendum outcome, pushing the Vote Leave share below 50 percent. The overall reductions in fiscal cuts would have amounted to less than £3 billion in total for the UK. In contrast, even major changes to immigration from Eastern Europe would have been very unlikely to sway the vote in any meaningful way.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/305-2016_becker_fetzer_novy.pdf

JennyFreeman

The other thing to bear in mind is events. One more Clinton collapse or Islamic terrorism and Trump will bounce. At the moment I think he'll lose but this is still far from certain.

RobD

Glorious twenty first!

Monksfield

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

Keep clutching at straws..... There's enough evidence out there in all sorts of places to suggest Trump is going to get shellacked.

Pong

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The polling for brexit was pretty good if you averaged them.

It was the polling in GE2015 that was considerably out.

Not that the troof matters for trumpeters.

Alistair

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

Can you name a national poll he is ahead in apart from Rasmussen and their 24% African American vote?

Sean_F

JenS said:

What about split ticketing? The more certain it appears that an unpopular Clinton wins the presidency, the more likely that voters will want to give the Republicans counterbalancing votes downticket surely?

Following on from my last comment, there's an interesting article about the Senate race on 538, suggesting that polling has actually moved slightly to the Republicans in Senate contests, even as it's shifted markedly to Clinton. The author suggests that when a Presidential election looks like a foregone conclusion, some voters will vote the other way down-ballot. 1972, 1984, 1988, and 1996 must be examples. It could be that a candidate with numbers as unfavourable as Clinton will accentuate that.

Alistair

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The Congressional Districts happens at State level and is timed with the census so the next redistricting is 2020

Monksfield

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

I think you're right, the Dems will nominate a centrist but it wasn't a courtesy Bush2 offered when he nominated Alito and Roberts? It always seems to be the Dems who are expected to give ground.

Don't forget Obama has just offered them a Centrist and they have chosen to whine about illegitimacy and generally blow hard.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The House doesn't draw the boundaries. They're drawn at State level.

JennyFreeman

Alistair said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

Can you name a national poll he is ahead in apart from Rasmussen and their 24% African American vote?

What's the political betting adage?

JennyFreeman

Pong said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The polling for brexit was pretty good if you averaged them.

Nah it wan't despite what Mike says. Most polls were way out but look less bad if you take the few who got it right.

JosiasJessop

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

Damn! Missed a first!

Was reading a paper on procedural generation instead ... At least, trying to read it.

Losing both houses to the Dems might be the shock the GOP need.

I fear the 'one more heave' school of thought may yet prevail - unless its a total meltdown...

Could someone more familiar than myself with US politics answer me something: the Tea Party phenomenon featured heavily in the last US election. However this time it is hardy being mentioned, at least over here. As it is still very much a group, has it just been drowned out, or has it more or less become subsumed within Republican thinking?

Monksfield

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The House doesn't draw the boundaries. They're drawn at State level.

But the House could legislate on parameters that limit their ability to gerrymander, no?

Alistair

JennyFreeman said:

Pong said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The polling for brexit was pretty good if you averaged them.

Nah it wan't despite what Mike says. Most polls were way out but look less bad if you take the few who got it right.

At one month out how many polls in the preceding month had a brexit win.

Now, in the preceding month to now howany polls have a Trump national popular vote win?

Alistair

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

Damn! Missed a first!

Was reading a paper on procedural generation instead ... At least, trying to read it.

Losing both houses to the Dems might be the shock the GOP need.

I fear the 'one more heave' school of thought may yet prevail - unless its a total meltdown...

Could someone more familiar than myself with US politics answer me something: the Tea Party phenomenon featured heavily in the last US election. However this time it is hardy being mentioned, at least over here. As it is still very much a group, has it just been drowned out, or has it more or less become subsumed within Republican thinking?

They have become a regular part of the political landscape so don't generate outsized reportage. They are still there, still primarying Republicans that don't meet their purity test etc.

Monksfield

JosiasJessop said:

CarlottaVance said:

JosiasJessop said:

Damn! Missed a first!

Was reading a paper on procedural generation instead ... At least, trying to read it.

Losing both houses to the Dems might be the shock the GOP need.

I fear the 'one more heave' school of thought may yet prevail - unless its a total meltdown...

Could someone more familiar than myself with US politics answer me something: the Tea Party phenomenon featured heavily in the last US election. However this time it is hardy being mentioned, at least over here. As it is still very much a group, has it just been drowned out, or has it more or less become subsumed within Republican thinking?

Ted Cruz was effectively the tea party candidate, but the howl of dissatisfaction that created the Tea Party has probably got behind the Donald to a large extent.

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

I thought the House district boundaries mirrored State level district boundaries so weren't decided at a House level? Or is that wrong?

Sean_F

Monksfield said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The House doesn't draw the boundaries. They're drawn at State level.

But the House could legislate on parameters that limit their ability to gerrymander, no?

I'm certainly no expert on this, but I think that would require a Constitutional change.

logical_song

Pong said:

Yeah, it looks pretty dire for the GOP - although on current polling they'll keep the house/senate.

Anyway, what's happened to wikileaks? Directing hacks and then offering bounties is seriously not ok;

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-offers-award-for-LabourLeaks.html

Republicans set to lose the Senate, but keep the House.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Alanbrooke

Based on press reports, whatever happens nthere will be a rapist in the White House

logical_song

JennyFreeman said:

Pong said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The polling for brexit was pretty good if you averaged them.

Nah it wan't despite what Mike says. Most polls were way out but look less bad if you take the few who got it right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/

Monksfield

logical_song said:

Pong said:

Yeah, it looks pretty dire for the GOP - although on current polling they'll keep the house/senate.

Anyway, what's happened to wikileaks? Directing hacks and then offering bounties is seriously not ok;

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-offers-award-for-LabourLeaks.html

Republicans set to lose the Senate, but keep the House.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Evan Bayh coming back has potentially been a game changer as nobody else could likely have put IN back into play.

SouthamObserver

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The Congressional Districts happens at State level and is timed with the census so the next redistricting is 2020

Fair enough. I guess the way to change that is a challenge to the current system at a rebalanced Supreme Court. :-)

Paul_Bedfordshire

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

SouthamObserver

Monksfield said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

I think you're right, the Dems will nominate a centrist but it wasn't a courtesy Bush2 offered when he nominated Alito and Roberts? It always seems to be the Dems who are expected to give ground.

Don't forget Obama has just offered them a Centrist and they have chosen to whine about illegitimacy and generally blow hard.

Roberts has been more centrist than expected. Wasn't he the swing vote that kept Obamacare in place? Under him, SCOTUS has been much more focused on business law. The number of patent cases it has handled is unprecedented. And SOTUS has shown itself to be very anti-patent.

logical_song

Monksfield said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

Keep clutching at straws..... There's enough evidence out there in all sorts of places to suggest Trump is going to get shellacked.

For someone who thinks Trump will lose, Jenny does seem desperate to find any Trump silver lining available.
Jenny, I'm sure you can get good odds if you think Trump will win.

PlatoSaid

Morning

There's so many coincidences! What a small world

Michael Delauzen
Hello, my name is Jessica Leeds, I am a Trump sexual assault victim. I just happen to be a clinton foundation secretary & hillarys friend. https://t.co/RKJidCBabz

She's the octopus lady. The plane doesn't exist and the arm rests didn't raise up.

Sean_F

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The Congressional Districts happens at State level and is timed with the census so the next redistricting is 2020

Fair enough. I guess the way to change that is a challenge to the current system at a rebalanced Supreme Court. :-)

Even without gerrymandering, it's reckoned that the Republican vote is more efficiently distributed than the Democratic vote. Democrats pile up huge majorities in big urban areas, while Republicans pile up less huge, but comfortable, leads in the hinterland. Also, the creation of majority/minority districts tends to put too many Democratic voters together. This has no impact on Presidential or Statewide contests, but does give the Republicans an advantage in the House.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

If this happens, could the next four years be a bit like 1997 (writ small) for the Republicans, or have they gone too far to recover (in terms of getting a candidate with broader appeal)?

Assuming, of course, Trump doesn't win.

Jonathan

PlatoSaid said:

Morning

There's so many coincidences! What a small world

Michael Delauzen
Hello, my name is Jessica Leeds, I am a Trump sexual assault victim. I just happen to be a clinton foundation secretary & hillarys friend. https://t.co/RKJidCBabz

She's the octopus lady. The plane doesn't exist and the arm rests didn't raise up.

Morning Plato. Understand your trying to add balance to PB and dislike Clinton, but would love to understand what you like about Trump. Are you looking forward to his presidency?

Pong

logical_song said:

Pong said:

Yeah, it looks pretty dire for the GOP - although on current polling they'll keep the house/senate.

Anyway, what's happened to wikileaks? Directing hacks and then offering bounties is seriously not ok;

https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeaks-offers-award-for-LabourLeaks.html

Republicans set to lose the Senate, but keep the House.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Yes, you're right & thanks for the link. Worth noting that 538 make a 50/50 senate a 15.1% chance, or 13/2.

layable for £64 @ 2.9/2.94 on betfair;

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125797393

rcs1000

I think the Republicans will long regret not allowing Garland a hearing. If the Democrats do capture the Senate, he won't be the nominee, it will be someone a lot more liberal.

Innocent_Abroad

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

Jonathan

Wondering if someone had told Cameron, Clegg and Milliband in Jan 2015 what happens next, what -if anything - they would have done differently.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, Cameron would either not have called the referendum or tried to secure a deal that could actually be sold.

rcs1000

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The underlying failure of the polls in the EU referendum was that it picked up on a lot of Leave voters, but down-weighted them. The underlyings in the US Presidential election don't look like that at all, they all pick up far more Democrat voters than Republican ones.

Indeed, if anything, they are upweighting Republicans.

Alistair

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The Congressional Districts happens at State level and is timed with the census so the next redistricting is 2020

Fair enough. I guess the way to change that is a challenge to the current system at a rebalanced Supreme Court. :-)

There is a bunch of federal laws about congressional districting (I think equal sized districts is a federal law) but I think both sides like the ability to redraw in their favour if they win the control of the states.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

CarlottaVance

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

Alistair

PlatoSaid said:

Morning

There's so many coincidences! What a small world

Michael Delauzen
Hello, my name is Jessica Leeds, I am a Trump sexual assault victim. I just happen to be a clinton foundation secretary & hillarys friend. https://t.co/RKJidCBabz

She's the octopus lady. The plane doesn't exist and the arm rests didn't raise up.

Trump has just put forward a witness who said Trump was on the plane with her.

Paul_Bedfordshire

logical_song said:

Monksfield said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

Keep clutching at straws..... There's enough evidence out there in all sorts of places to suggest Trump is going to get shellacked.

For someone who thinks Trump will lose, Jenny does seem desperate to find any Trump silver lining available.
Jenny, I'm sure you can get good odds if you think Trump will win.

What is fascinating is that Jenny, Plato and I think another trump ite here I cant remember the name of are women.

Alistair

rcs1000 said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The underlying failure of the polls in the EU referendum was that it picked up on a lot of Leave voters, but down-weighted them. The underlyings in the US Presidential election don't look like that at all, they all pick up far more Democrat voters than Republican ones.

Indeed, if anything, they are upweighting Republicans.

Incorrect. No poll showed Leave in the lead. The US election is exactly like Brexit.

EXACTLY LIKE BREXIT.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

In those terms we unquestionably won world war 1 (yanks were useful but by no means essential) and Russia World War 2 (us and the yanks just stopped the warsaw pact bloc extending to the english channel).

The point is that bazzer (and I fear the EU) wholly misunderstand the British psyche which is to tolerate the most dreadful privations with even a small measure of relish if the alternative is an outsider running their affairs - however benignly. And seek to repay them a hundredfold for such privations.

PlatoSaid

Quite a good summary

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/14/seven-more-hillary-clinton-scandals-exposed-wikile/

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If this happens, could the next four years be a bit like 1997 (writ small) for the Republicans, or have they gone too far to recover (in terms of getting a candidate with broader appeal)?

Assuming, of course, Trump doesn't win.

I think the risk now is anger turning into civil unrest whatever the result. The Trumpers are furious over the vote manipulation, the media collusion, the insults et al. The Bernie fans now know for certain that the DNC had chosen Hillary already and sabotaged him. As did the GOP over Trump.

A lot of unhappy people are feeling this is a sham rigged election and it's being bent to a soviet level by propaganda pretending to be news.

I saw a poll last night saying 65% GOP feel betrayed by their own Party after failing to back their own nominee. The RNC haven't spent a single dollar supporting Trump yet. They'd spent tens of millions by now for Romney.

Innocent_Abroad

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

JennyFreeman said:

Trump is actually ahead in some polls. Still, we all believe in poll averages and ignore the ones which don't fit what we want, right? #Brexit

The underlying failure of the polls in the EU referendum was that it picked up on a lot of Leave voters, but down-weighted them. The underlyings in the US Presidential election don't look like that at all, they all pick up far more Democrat voters than Republican ones.

Indeed, if anything, they are upweighting Republicans.

Incorrect. No poll showed Leave in the lead. The US election is exactly like Brexit.

EXACTLY LIKE BREXIT.

No. The Remainers have not threatened to use firearms in the eveny of defeat.

rcs1000

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

Paul_Bedfordshire

CarlottaVance said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

No, Russia would have prevailed whatever happened after that first winter. Simple question of numbers and Stalin being able to relocate arms factories safely behind the Urals. Would have taken longer but was inevitable.

Innocent_Abroad

CarlottaVance said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

Don't forget the Free French and the Finns

logical_song

Jonathan said:

Wondering if someone had told Cameron, Clegg and Milliband in Jan 2015 what happens next, what -if anything - they would have done differently.

I don't see that there was much that Miliband or Clegg could have done, maybe Miliband could have ruled out adeal with the SNP more firmly.
If Cameron had known he might have laid off the LibDems, not won a majority and then blamed the lack of a Referendum on the LibDems.
But although some suspected, no-one knew.

MonikerDiCanio

Trump seems remarkably relaxed and happy to me for a man enduring press hysteria and fabrication. It must be pure love of combat.

rcs1000

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

In those terms we unquestionably won world war 1 (yanks were useful but by no means essential) and Russia World War 2 (us and the yanks just stopped the warsaw pact bloc extending to the english channel).

The point is that bazzer (and I fear the EU) wholly misunderstand the British psyche which is to tolerate the most dreadful privations with even a small measure of relish if the alternative is an outsider running their affairs - however benignly. And seek to repay them a hundredfold for such privations.

And the elite preferred surrender and accomodation in both cases?

JosiasJessop

PlatoSaid said:

Morning

There's so many coincidences! What a small world

Michael Delauzen
Hello, my name is Jessica Leeds, I am a Trump sexual assault victim. I just happen to be a clinton foundation secretary & hillarys friend. https://t.co/RKJidCBabz

She's the octopus lady. The plane doesn't exist and the arm rests didn't raise up.

Aside from the image, is there a link to any *evidence* in that tweet?

Monksfield

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

In those terms we unquestionably won world war 1 (yanks were useful but by no means essential) and Russia World War 2 (us and the yanks just stopped the warsaw pact bloc extending to the english channel).

The point is that bazzer (and I fear the EU) wholly misunderstand the British psyche which is to tolerate the most dreadful privations with even a small measure of relish if the alternative is an outsider running their affairs - however benignly. And seek to repay them a hundredfold for such privations.

Unless they're called William...

Paul_Bedfordshire

By the way, Aldi are not selling the cuckoo clocks anymore.

See the avatar for the flashing red eyed head swivelling screeching crows that they are now offering.

rcs1000

MonikerDiCanio said:

Trump seems remarkably relaxed and happy to me for a man enduring press hysteria and fabrication. It must be pure love of combat.

Are we looking at the same man?

PlatoSaid

Megan Kelly is experiencing karma from viewers. Her audience isn't happy and seem delighted that others are boycotting her too.

Very Top Gear over Chris Evans.

http://dcwhispers.com/wow-megyn-kelly-getting-pummeled-ratings-trump-supporters-boycott-program/#JXeCr5REAvMBPWZg.99

Alistair

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/787073017578946561

MonikerDiCanio

rcs1000 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Trump seems remarkably relaxed and happy to me for a man enduring press hysteria and fabrication. It must be pure love of combat.

Are we looking at the same man?

Paul_Bedfordshire

rcs1000 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

In those terms we unquestionably won world war 1 (yanks were useful but by no means essential) and Russia World War 2 (us and the yanks just stopped the warsaw pact bloc extending to the english channel).

The point is that bazzer (and I fear the EU) wholly misunderstand the British psyche which is to tolerate the most dreadful privations with even a small measure of relish if the alternative is an outsider running their affairs - however benignly. And seek to repay them a hundredfold for such privations.

And the elite preferred surrender and accomodation in both cases?

It is you who say it. Halifaxites...cough.

Those with most to lose are most reluctant to lose it.

Alistair

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

CarlottaVance said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

No, Russia would have prevailed whatever happened after that first winter. Simple question of numbers and Stalin being able to relocate arms factories safely behind the Urals. Would have taken longer but was inevitable.

Not without lend-lease. America supplied the majority of aviation fuel, trains and trucks used by Russia allowing the Russians to focus on producing weaponary.

Take that away and Russia was farked.

rcs1000

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/787073017578946561

It's staggering that Trump is actually underperforming Romney with non college educated whites.

MonikerDiCanio

rcs1000 said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

Trump seems remarkably relaxed and happy to me for a man enduring press hysteria and fabrication. It must be pure love of combat.

Are we looking at the same man?

The other night Trump gave a talk to a group of millennials, he exuded paternal bonhomie.

Paul_Bedfordshire

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/787073017578946561

It's staggering that Trump is actually underperforming Romney with non college educated whites.

Indeed.

I smell a slight rat though with that divide.

I really cant believe that college educated whites diverge so sharply from the horny handed sons of toil. I can believe though that the college educated ones would be very reluctant to express support for Trump outside the secrecy of the ballot box.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Monksfield, William the Conqueror was never King of Britain or the UK.

IanB2

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

Two of the three eldest SCOTUS judges are on the liberal wing - Ginsburg and (I think) Breyer. If the Democrats gain the Senate at least one of them is certain to step down. As David says, that could lead to a liberal majority. If both go, the likelihood is that HRC will nominate one more centrist judge, as convention demands a level of balance. If the Democrats gain the House - unlikely, but possible - they will get the chance to undo the district boundaries the Republicans gerrymandered and will then gerrymander their own. The stakes are very big indeed.

The House doesn't draw the boundaries. They're drawn at State level.

So presumably, given that the states are divided between the parties and yet there is a very significant republican bias, the republican states must be more cynical and shameless about fiddling their boundaries than the democratic ones?

rcs1000

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/787073017578946561

It's staggering that Trump is actually underperforming Romney with non college educated whites.

Indeed.

I smell a slight rat though with that divide.

I really cant believe that college educated whites diverge so sharply from the horny handed sons of toil. I can believe though that the college educated ones would be very reluctant to express support for Trump outside the secrecy of the ballot box.

The way to spot if there are shy voters it to look for divergences between on-line and phone polling. People are more honest with machines*.

* With the caveat that on-line polling overstated the vote shares of the anti-establishment FN, Syriza, Podemos and PVV in the last sets of elections, which suggests that parties with more motivated bases tend to get an artificial boost from on-line.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Interesting, hills have slipped from 11/2 to 5:1 on Trump and the best odds on Hillary on the market have gone the from 1-6 to 2-11.

Alistair

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Interesting, hills have slipped from 11/2 to 5:1 on Trump and the best odds on Hillary on the market have gone the from 1-6 to 2-11.

They are following 538

Dromedary

Scenario:

* R hold Senate

* R win at least 17 states in the HoR

* in the EC, McMullin takes Utah and there's no majority.

According to the 12th amendment, the HoR gets to pick the president out of Clinton, Trump and McMullin... But wait! There needs to be a quorum, which is two-thirds, i.e. 34 states. So a fourth option arises:

* enough R states abstain so that the quorum is not achieved

* whoever the Senate picks as vice-president, i.e. Pence, becomes president

* Betfair pay out on Pence

(Another scenario is if R don't hold the Senate. Then the R states in the HoR can, if they really don't want Clinton, give the presidency to Kaine.)

Monksfield

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Monksfield, William the Conqueror was never King of Britain or the UK.

William of Orange was though!

nunu

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, there could be a shy Trump factor, though.

That's absolutely true. Trump can win if he really motivates a large number of people who previously didn't vote to go out and vote for him.

However, he has also managed to piss off a lot of people who should be solid Republican voters. For every Appalachian man who thinks Trump will shake up a cosy system, there is probably a Hispanic in Nevada who probably wasn't going to vote, but doesn't want to see someone with Trump's views become President. And there are a lot of women out there who have been the victims of sexual assault of some kind or another, and who are normally solidly Republican, who probably won't go down the polling station to put an X in his box.

Three weeks ago, I thought Trump's Great Lake strategy would work. It now seems unlikely. If Pennsylvania stays Blue, I don't see how he can do it.

https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/787073017578946561

It's staggering that Trump is actually underperforming Romney with non college educated whites.

Indeed.

I smell a slight rat though with that divide.

I really cant believe that college educated whites diverge so sharply from the horny handed sons of toil. I can believe though that the college educated ones would be very reluctant to express support for Trump outside the secrecy of the ballot box.

They didn't used to divide that much Romney won both by about 20%. College educated republicans are being driven away by Trump in droves. In the Philly suburbs she is up 28% Which Romney narrowly won and this is happening acrosss the swing states! There may be shy voters but not that many.

IanB2

CarlottaVance said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.


Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

Overy's book "why the allies won" is the best analysis of all the various factors that led to the allied victory. He looks at everything from manpower and money through ideology, technology and leadership. As I remember from the book, additional factors to your three were:

- the allies had a significant intelligence advantage from enigma and the willingness of occupied populations to co-operate with them

- German ideological obsessions and behaviour generated resistance, tying down troops and resources, and a lot of German effort was directed to non-military objectives like the holocaust

- German military technology was often better but much more complicated; as the pressures of war grew the more straightforward US and Russian systems (fewer parts, interchangeable spares etc,) gave the allies a considerable advantage. German kit could be better but often broken down.

- the allies got to nuclear technology first

Reading the book it seems almost inevitable that the allies would have won, even if the luck of war or individual battles had gone the other way, with the single exception of what if the Germans had ever been able to do a Hiroshima on London or New York.

Dromedary

Dromedary said:

Scenario:

* R hold Senate

* R win at least 17 states in the HoR

* in the EC, McMullin takes Utah and there's no majority.

According to the 12th amendment, the HoR gets to pick the president out of Clinton, Trump and McMullin... But wait! There needs to be a quorum, which is two-thirds, i.e. 34 states. So a fourth option arises:

* enough R states abstain so that the quorum is not achieved

* whoever the Senate picks as vice-president, i.e. Pence, becomes president

* Betfair pay out on Pence

(Another scenario is if R don't hold the Senate. Then the R states in the HoR can, if they really don't want Clinton, give the presidency to Kaine.)

Conclusion:

no majority in EC => presidency goes to the VP candidate of whichever party wins the Senate.

HurstLlama

Monksfield said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Monksfield, William the Conqueror was never King of Britain or the UK.

William of Orange was though!

William of Orange died in 1702, so he is out too, surely.

William IV, the forgotten king, was king of the UK.

PB trivia quiz: In which London square is there a statue of William IV?

IanB2

P.s. I also forgot leadership - the allied leadership systems allowed more independent action (at strategic level) whereas the Germans were increasingly hampered by one man's erratic and controlling ways. However at battlefield level it was considered the German setup was superior.

CarlottaVance

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

CarlottaVance said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

A
Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

WWI very arguable - they helped tip the balance - but it was British £££ that ran three out of the four years.

WWII - what's the old saying about the British buying time, the Soviets blood and the Americans materiel.....Remove any one of them from the equation and the result would have been very different....

No, Russia would have prevailed whatever happened after that first winter. Simple question of numbers and Stalin being able to relocate arms factories safely behind the Urals. Would have taken longer but was inevitable.

Not without lend-lease. America supplied the majority of aviation fuel, trains and trucks used by Russia allowing the Russians to focus on producing weaponary.

Take that away and Russia was farked.

Much of it shipped by the British merchant navy.....

Paul_Bedfordshire

Dromedary said:

Scenario:

* R hold Senate

* R win at least 17 states in the HoR

* in the EC, McMullin takes Utah and there's no majority.

According to the 12th amendment, the HoR gets to pick the president out of Clinton, Trump and McMullin... But wait! There needs to be a quorum, which is two-thirds, i.e. 34 states. So a fourth option arises:

* enough R states abstain so that the quorum is not achieved

* whoever the Senate picks as vice-president, i.e. Pence, becomes president

* Betfair pay out on Pence

Does make 100-1 on pence look generous.

nunu

PlatoSaid said:

Quite a good summary

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/14/seven-more-hillary-clinton-scandals-exposed-wikile/

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

If this happens, could the next four years be a bit like 1997 (writ small) for the Republicans, or have they gone too far to recover (in terms of getting a candidate with broader appeal)?

Assuming, of course, Trump doesn't win.

I think the risk now is anger turning into civil unrest whatever the result. The Trumpers are furious over the vote manipulation, the media collusion, the insults et al. The Bernie fans now know for certain that the DNC had chosen Hillary already and sabotaged him. As did the GOP over Trump.

A lot of unhappy people are feeling this is a sham rigged election and it's being bent to a soviet level by propaganda pretending to be news.

I saw a poll last night saying 65% GOP feel betrayed by their own Party after failing to back their own nominee. The RNC haven't spent a single dollar supporting Trump yet. They'd spent tens of millions by now for Romney.

Oh I see even if Trump loses u won't accept the result. Sad!

IanB2

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT

bazzer72 said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Im beyond caring what the EU thinks.

If they are sensible, lets agree a good deal.

If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.

Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.

It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)

Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...

Isn't this just basis survival logic?

And if that failed to crucify us, what then U boats to sink our merchant shipping throttling our trade and the luftwaffe to flatten the city of London? I seem to recall that this didnt work last time either. We just said get stuffed and carried on.

Its not us with 50% youth unemployment, negative interest rates, fascist parties on the verge of winning elections, confiscation of savers money from banks and huge banks on the verge of collapse.

When in a crumbling greenhouse it is most advisable not to throw stone

I have always believed that it was the Yanks who won WW2 - and indeed WW1. Please explain to me where I have gone wrong.

In those terms we unquestionably won world war 1 (yanks were useful but by no means essential) and Russia World War 2 (us and the yanks just stopped the warsaw pact bloc extending to the english channel).

The point is that bazzer (and I fear the EU) wholly misunderstand the British psyche which is to tolerate the most dreadful privations with even a small measure of relish if the alternative is an outsider running their affairs - however benignly. And seek to repay them a hundredfold for such privations.

The difference this time is that a large part of the British populus and politicians would see the damage as self-inflicted. And voters will clearly choose to blame the Tories rather than blame themselves.

I also see we are back to predicting what the EU will or won't do based solely upon a cold analysis of the best economic outcome. How did that turn out here in the U.K.?

rcs1000

HurstLlama said:

Monksfield said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Monksfield, William the Conqueror was never King of Britain or the UK.

William of Orange was though!

William of Orange died in 1702, so he is out too, surely.

William IV, the forgotten king, was king of the UK.

PB trivia quiz: In which London square is there a statue of William IV?

St James's Square, I think.

(I work on St James's Street...)

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

Monksfield said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Monksfield, William the Conqueror was never King of Britain or the UK.

William of Orange was though!

William of Orange died in 1702, so he is out too, surely.

William IV, the forgotten king, was king of the UK.

PB trivia quiz: In which London square is there a statue of William IV?

St James's Square, I think.

(I work on St James's Street...)

Ahhh... that's William III. My error.