politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB/Polling Matters Podcast: Why Trump won and what’ll he d

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB/Polling Matters Podcast: Why Trump won and what’ll he do in his first 100 days

On this week’s PB/Polling Matters podcast Keiran is joined once more by White House Correspondent and US political analyst Jon-Christopher Bua.

Read the full story here

OldKingCole

First. But at 3am UK time I've an advantage!

Charles

OldKingCole said:

First. But at 3am UK time I've an advantage!

As my last post on the previous thread was about fertility in dairy cows it's probably a good thing that you got in first...

RobD

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995606

Didn't the EU just sign a free trade agreement with Canada?

OldKingCole

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

rcs1000

RobD said:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995606

Didn't the EU just sign a free trade agreement with Canada?

The EU has lots of free trade deals. I think this is a journalist confusing "being in the single market" with "having tariff free access to the single market".

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/dizzy_thinks/status/798768913618071552

foxinsoxuk

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

ThomasNashe

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

I think if there's one lesson the Democrats need to take heed of, it's that they should have someone fresh - not an establishment retread.

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

DecrepitJohnL

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

DecrepitJohnL

The dog that didn't bark in the podcast is who will the Republicans put up if, as many expect, Trump quits after one term. Remember that to be elected president, Trump defeated the Democrats but destroyed the GOP establishment candidates, and ideologically he is barely Republican. Any value in the betting markets for next president might lie on the GOP side.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

SouthamObserver

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

ydoethur

Charles said:

OldKingCole said:

First. But at 3am UK time I've an advantage!

As my last post on the previous thread was about fertility in dairy cows it's probably a good thing that you got in first...

Saved from anudder first post by Charles?

ydoethur

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

There are so many possible negatives and pitfalls with Trump - minorities, women, foreign affairs, business dealings - that it's actually quite difficult to guess what the first disaster will be.

The question is less what it will be than how bad the knock on effects will be.

Chris_from_Paris

After the discussion on the previous thread regarding the French presidential Républicains primary, there is other important news this morning.

Former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron will finally declare officially his candidacy this morning. All press reports indicate he will refuse to take part to the left-wing primary.

Some polls put him quite high (around 20%) just after he resigned from the government in September but it was generally in the most favorable (and unrealistic) scenarios - such as Sarkozy for the right, no centrist (Bayrou) candidacy) and no socialist in the race.

In more realistic scenarios, he would probably contend with Bayrou and Juppe or Fillon for the centre and centre-right vote, while competing with a socialist (Valls, Hollande or Montebourg) for the centre-left.

In this kind of contest, his base seems to be around 12 to 15%. He probably would needd to add around 10% to reach the second round.

He will be very strongly supported by centre-left media and he has raised quite a lot of money (around 3 million euros) without the help of any established party but I remain doubtful of his long-term appeal. His main problem is that most of his message is identified with the centre-right but he tends to call himself a left-winger. His only private job (investment banker) does not resonate very well with traditional socialist voters.

Even if his candidacy does not come as a surprise to anyone, his odds could tighten now that he officially enters the race.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There is no single 'leader of the opposition' in US politics. There are the minority leaders in th Senate and the House, and as you point out, possibly the soon to be ex President (though it sounds as though most of his time is currently occupied in explaining to Trump what it is that the President does...).
The party organisation will get quite a shakeup - the Sanders wing is already making moves to oust state chairs in several states where he won the primary overwhelmingly, and the 'super delegates' voted for Clinton. The national chair will change shortly.
A candidate for President next time round very likely won't emerge until much nearer the primary process.

SouthamObserver

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

There are so many possible negatives and pitfalls with Trump - minorities, women, foreign affairs, business dealings - that it's actually quite difficult to guess what the first disaster will be.

The question is less what it will be than how bad the knock on effects will be.

Yep - that was kind of my point. From a Democrat perspective, it is vital that the party is not associated with any violence that does occur, but at the same time it needs to harness any anger to overcome increased voter suppression and to get people to the polls. It will be a very tricky balancing act and will need very strong and inspirational leadership. The kind that is extremely hard to find. I think your Obama call is an excellent one, at least as a medium term solution.

FF43

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Nigelb

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Nigelb

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

There are so many possible negatives and pitfalls with Trump - minorities, women, foreign affairs, business dealings - that it's actually quite difficult to guess what the first disaster will be.

The question is less what it will be than how bad the knock on effects will be.

Yep - that was kind of my point. From a Democrat perspective, it is vital that the party is not associated with any violence that does occur, but at the same time it needs to harness any anger to overcome increased voter suppression and to get people to the polls. It will be a very tricky balancing act and will need very strong and inspirational leadership. The kind that is extremely hard to find. I think your Obama call is an excellent one, at least as a medium term solution.

I think rather that the Democrats need to rebuild from the ground up. They need to compete at the state level.

Sandpit

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.

foxinsoxuk

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

I think if there's one lesson the Democrats need to take heed of, it's that they should have someone fresh - not an establishment retread.

I was thinking more as a level headed voice of opposition rather than 2020 candidate. That needs someone fresh.

Worth remembering though that insurgencies are often led by an establishment turncoat like Farage or Trump with no real historical connection to the communities that they claim to speak for.

Jonathan

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Nice hair and a safe pair of (tiny) hands.

ydoethur

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Name me a Democrat that isn't. Apart from Obama himself and to a lesser extent Kaine, do they have any key figures with a national profile under 65? Their big figures have the age profile of Corbyn's Labour ten years from now, which may explain why they are obsessed with issues from the late eighties rather than the bread and butter issues of jobs and housing that won Trump the election.

And if you can't, what are their chances in 2020?

Innocent_Abroad

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

The "stench of sour grapes" is but part of a far larger problem. Left-wing politics, as we have known them at least since the foundation of the Labour Party here and FDR's New Deal across the pond. require politics to be based on economic cleavage. They no longer are. Political cleavage is now based on race (and racism).

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There is no single 'leader of the opposition' in US politics. There are the minority leaders in th Senate and the House, and as you point out, possibly the soon to be ex President (though it sounds as though most of his time is currently occupied in explaining to Trump what it is that the President does...).
The party organisation will get quite a shakeup - the Sanders wing is already making moves to oust state chairs in several states where he won the primary overwhelmingly, and the 'super delegates' voted for Clinton. The national chair will change shortly.
A candidate for President next time round very likely won't emerge until much nearer the primary process.

I was thinking that they should take a couple of years to find themselves, but then run their primaries a year earlier than usual, in 2019.

They can then select a Pres and VP candidate who have 18 months to be that Leader of the Opposition, shadowing Trump and getting themselves on the news every night.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.

Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?

foxinsoxuk

Chris_from_Paris said:

After the discussion on the previous thread regarding the French presidential Républicains primary, there is other important news this morning.

Former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron will finally declare officially his candidacy this morning. All press reports indicate he will refuse to take part to the left-wing primary.

Some polls put him quite high (around 20%) just after he resigned from the government in September but it was generally in the most favorable (and unrealistic) scenarios - such as Sarkozy for the right, no centrist (Bayrou) candidacy) and no socialist in the race.

In more realistic scenarios, he would probably contend with Bayrou and Juppe or Fillon for the centre and centre-right vote, while competing with a socialist (Valls, Hollande or Montebourg) for the centre-left.

In this kind of contest, his base seems to be around 12 to 15%. He probably would needd to add around 10% to reach the second round.

He will be very strongly supported by centre-left media and he has raised quite a lot of money (around 3 million euros) without the help of any established party but I remain doubtful of his long-term appeal. His main problem is that most of his message is identified with the centre-right but he tends to call himself a left-winger. His only private job (investment banker) does not resonate very well with traditional socialist voters.

Even if his candidacy does not come as a surprise to anyone, his odds could tighten now that he officially enters the race.

Thanks for the update.

A header on this and the candidates relative merits to bettors would be very welcome.

tlg86

foxinsoxuk said:

ThomasNashe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

I think if there's one lesson the Democrats need to take heed of, it's that they should have someone fresh - not an establishment retread.

I was thinking more as a level headed voice of opposition rather than 2020 candidate. That needs someone fresh.

Worth remembering though that insurgencies are often led by an establishment turncoat like Farage or Trump with no real historical connection to the communities that they claim to speak for.

To be fair to Nigel, he turned on the establishment (and by that you mean he once worked as a metals trader) a long time ago.

DavidL

Won't the Democratic leader by default not be Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House? She will get the media coverage as the Republicans seek to use their full set of offices to put through their agenda. I suspect that Trump will, a few key policies apart, play a modest role in this but the threat of a veto has gone.

What will be interesting is whether Paul Ryan keeps the role of Speaker. His relationship with Trump is pretty problematic but that may not matter. I doubt Trump has enough supporters in the House to enforce his choice as Speaker. If Ryan keeps the post and the profile and can deliver a conservative agenda that works he will be very well placed next time.

None of this tells us who the next Democratic candidate will be. They hold relatively few governorships so that is the most likely pond in which to fish. Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

SouthamObserver

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Name me a Democrat that isn't. Apart from Obama himself and to a lesser extent Kaine, do they have any key figures with a national profile under 65? Their big figures have the age profile of Corbyn's Labour ten years from now, which may explain why they are obsessed with issues from the late eighties rather than the bread and butter issues of jobs and housing that won Trump the election.

And if you can't, what are their chances in 2020?

Who would have named Bill Clinton in 1988. Or Barack Obama in 2004? The Democrats actually have a pretty decent record of finding viable candidates to run when the Republicans have the presidency. It's succession they are not so good at.

Nigelb

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There is no single 'leader of the opposition' in US politics. There are the minority leaders in th Senate and the House, and as you point out, possibly the soon to be ex President (though it sounds as though most of his time is currently occupied in explaining to Trump what it is that the President does...).
The party organisation will get quite a shakeup - the Sanders wing is already making moves to oust state chairs in several states where he won the primary overwhelmingly, and the 'super delegates' voted for Clinton. The national chair will change shortly.
A candidate for President next time round very likely won't emerge until much nearer the primary process.

I was thinking that they should take a couple of years to find themselves, but then run their primaries a year earlier than usual, in 2019.

They can then select a Pres and VP candidate who have 18 months to be that Leader of the Opposition, shadowing Trump and getting themselves on the news every night.

That's extremely unlikely, and Im not sure it would be particularly helpful in any event.
The US is a much bigger stage than the UK, and there are many ways to build a national profile without being 'leader of the opposition', a concept which doesn't comfortably sit in US politics.

As far as the DNC chair is concerned, it looks as though it will probably go to Keith Ellison over Howard Dean.

Sean_F

The Democrats need to drop the mindset that demographic change makes their final victory inevitable.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.

Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?

Yes, but with hindsight Trump won only because of narrow margins in several key states.

Biden didn't have Clinton's negatives and would have been able to run a more positive campaign. I'd have voted for him over Trump, that wasn't the case with the corrupt Clinton.

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

Won't the Democratic leader by default not be Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House? She will get the media coverage as the Republicans seek to use their full set of offices to put through their agenda. I suspect that Trump will, a few key policies apart, play a modest role in this but the threat of a veto has gone.

What will be interesting is whether Paul Ryan keeps the role of Speaker. His relationship with Trump is pretty problematic but that may not matter. I doubt Trump has enough supporters in the House to enforce his choice as Speaker. If Ryan keeps the post and the profile and can deliver a conservative agenda that works he will be very well placed next time.

None of this tells us who the next Democratic candidate will be. They hold relatively few governorships so that is the most likely pond in which to fish. Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

Oprah?

Ryan has just been unanimously re-elected as House speaker.

Jonathan

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Name me a Democrat that isn't. Apart from Obama himself and to a lesser extent Kaine, do they have any key figures with a national profile under 65? Their big figures have the age profile of Corbyn's Labour ten years from now, which may explain why they are obsessed with issues from the late eighties rather than the bread and butter issues of jobs and housing that won Trump the election.

And if you can't, what are their chances in 2020?

Who would have named Bill Clinton in 1988. Or Barack Obama in 2004? The Democrats actually have a pretty decent record of finding viable candidates to run when the Republicans have the presidency. It's succession they are not so good at.

To be fair three terms has only been achieved once since the 22nd amendment. If Carter had one a second term, it would have and even 8 years for each party since 1952.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

They have so many to choose from. Barbara Streisand, Cher, Miley Cyrus, or Pee Wee Herman, to name but four.

Jonathan

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

They have so many to choose from. Barbara Streisand, Cher, Miley Cyrus, or Pee Wee Herman, to name but four.

That reads like a full week of UKIP leaders.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Edited extra bit: ahem, forgot the slightly more serious concise description.

It's Kingdom Asunder, the first part of a fantasy trilogy, up for pre-order (out 24 November). Lower price applies from now until 8 December.

It's crammed full of ruthless she-wolves, scheming traitors, and grim knights. Fun for all the family [in seriousness, it isn't. Like knife-wrench, it's not for kids].

felix

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

I consider myself a moderate who respects a democratic choice however much I dislike it. Some on the left are still not listening to what has happened in the past year, resorting to hyperbole and playing every minority card in the book. Surely it is time they paused and started to think why many w/c voters have and are continuing to desert them. If the democrats go all 'Corbyn' on us they are truly doomed. I don't normally associate you with this approach but the angst of the past week is a little overblown.

Pulpstar

I note the BBC seems to be covering the terrible heroin epidemic in the USA now, and also the massive drug war problem in Mexico.

"More Americans now die from drugs than from guns or in car accidents, and increasingly, reports Ian Pannell, the victims are young, white and middle class." (BBC News)

Trump's said he would deal with the heroin epidemic, something I never heard Clinton say anything about once. The MSM shamefully never really covered this issue with the prescience or attention it deserved pre-election.

The BBC to their credit are actually now looking at some of the lesser reported issues and angles that helped Trump win.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Won't the Democratic leader by default not be Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House? She will get the media coverage as the Republicans seek to use their full set of offices to put through their agenda. I suspect that Trump will, a few key policies apart, play a modest role in this but the threat of a veto has gone.

What will be interesting is whether Paul Ryan keeps the role of Speaker. His relationship with Trump is pretty problematic but that may not matter. I doubt Trump has enough supporters in the House to enforce his choice as Speaker. If Ryan keeps the post and the profile and can deliver a conservative agenda that works he will be very well placed next time.

None of this tells us who the next Democratic candidate will be. They hold relatively few governorships so that is the most likely pond in which to fish. Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

Oprah?

Ryan has just been unanimously re-elected as House speaker.

Thanks, I missed that. I think the tension between Ryan and Trump will be interesting. Ryan is a fiscal conservative and Trump wants to spend a lot of borrowed money. Trump may seek to use the Fed to bypass the House to some degree with QE and the like but he is very unlikely to have free rein on his ambitions. Trump is not really a republican and has a very different view of the world than Ryan.

Oprah is a possibility.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Are the sales figures going to be huge?

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

Innocent_Abroad

Sean_F said:

The Democrats need to drop the mindset that demographic change makes their final victory inevitable.

What demographic change makes inevitable is more right-wing white voters.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Won't the Democratic leader by default not be Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House? She will get the media coverage as the Republicans seek to use their full set of offices to put through their agenda. I suspect that Trump will, a few key policies apart, play a modest role in this but the threat of a veto has gone.

What will be interesting is whether Paul Ryan keeps the role of Speaker. His relationship with Trump is pretty problematic but that may not matter. I doubt Trump has enough supporters in the House to enforce his choice as Speaker. If Ryan keeps the post and the profile and can deliver a conservative agenda that works he will be very well placed next time.

None of this tells us who the next Democratic candidate will be. They hold relatively few governorships so that is the most likely pond in which to fish. Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

Oprah?

Ryan has just been unanimously re-elected as House speaker.

Oprah was much maligned on twitter last week for her sensible reaction to the result.

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

I note the BBC seems to be covering the terrible heroin epidemic in the USA now, and also the massive drug war problem in Mexico.

"More Americans now die from drugs than from guns or in car accidents, and increasingly, reports Ian Pannell, the victims are young, white and middle class." (BBC News)

Trump's said he would deal with the heroin epidemic, something I never heard Clinton say anything about once. The MSM shamefully never really covered this issue with the prescience or attention it deserved pre-election.

The BBC to their credit are actually now looking at some of the lesser reported issues and angles that helped Trump win.

I heard Trump talk about this in New Hampshire before the primary. I was shocked that they have that problem in a state like New Hampshire.

felix

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Unless they can find their own TV celebrity of course.

They have so many to choose from. Barbara Streisand, Cher, Miley Cyrus, or Pee Wee Herman, to name but four.

I vote Miley - at least she has some eyecandy appeal with her dishy boyfriend - although he may have been drowned in her tears last week.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

He's not Hilary Clinton.

He seriously upset a lot of pompous and not very intelligent celebrities e.g. Alec Baldwin.

If I think of any more over the next few years, I'll let you know.

GeoffM

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I doubt you are.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.

Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?

Yes, but with hindsight Trump won only because of narrow margins in several key states.

Biden didn't have Clinton's negatives and would have been able to run a more positive campaign. I'd have voted for him over Trump, that wasn't the case with the corrupt Clinton.

Biden had at least two of Hillary's negatives -- he is a lousy campaigner and an Establishment insider. If the Republicans, Russian hackers and entirely neutral FBI had targeted Biden, perhaps more would have emerged.

felix

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

So far the economic predictions of doom have failed to materialise and his tone has been mostly quite measured. I doubt if I'll be giving further responses as I'm off out xmas shopping now amidst a dazzling blue sky and a forecast 23 degrees as winter starts to bite here in southern Spain Plenty of reasons for me to be positive.

Jonathan

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

He is less in hock to corporate lobbyists than predecessors.

Nigelb

GeoffM said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I doubt you are.

Thanks for enlightening me.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Hope it sells bigly, it's the best book, the bestest book ever

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Edited extra bit: ahem, forgot the slightly more serious concise description.

It's Kingdom Asunder, the first part of a fantasy trilogy, up for pre-order (out 24 November). Lower price applies from now until 8 December.

It's crammed full of ruthless she-wolves, scheming traitors, and grim knights. Fun for all the family [in seriousness, it isn't. Like knife-wrench, it's not for kids].

Loll. Speaking of cashing in -- Amazon is about to launch a kindle edition of Trump's Art of the Deal.

Toms

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

As we like to tell visiting Americans: " we do things differently here". The obverse applies. They don't "do" leaders of the opposition. For instance, who was "opposition leader" say three years ago? The US has a rather intricate constitution. I wonder whether it'll tie Trump up somewhat.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

I note the BBC seems to be covering the terrible heroin epidemic in the USA now, and also the massive drug war problem in Mexico.

"More Americans now die from drugs than from guns or in car accidents, and increasingly, reports Ian Pannell, the victims are young, white and middle class." (BBC News)

Trump's said he would deal with the heroin epidemic, something I never heard Clinton say anything about once. The MSM shamefully never really covered this issue with the prescience or attention it deserved pre-election.

The BBC to their credit are actually now looking at some of the lesser reported issues and angles that helped Trump win.

The more one reads about America away from the coasts, the more one realises just how screwed up the place is. In that context, voting for someone who doesn't care about offending people and who offers hope to those with no voice is entirely understandable.

DavidL

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, I'm cashing in. I'm cashing in big, it's what I do, because I'm a winner.

Mr. Sandpit, that's right people, Mr. Sandpit knows the truth. He knows it. He recognises greatness when he sees it.

Mr. D, so huge, so huge. They're gonna be great.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Edited extra bit: ahem, forgot the slightly more serious concise description.

It's Kingdom Asunder, the first part of a fantasy trilogy, up for pre-order (out 24 November). Lower price applies from now until 8 December.

It's crammed full of ruthless she-wolves, scheming traitors, and grim knights. Fun for all the family [in seriousness, it isn't. Like knife-wrench, it's not for kids].

Scheming traitors? Is it a book about Mark Reckless?

TheScreamingEagles

Turns out Liz Truss does value the judiciary

Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.

High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.

The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judges-set-for-15-per-cent-pay-riseto-tackle-recruitment-crisis-wljxdnkzc

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, I'm cashing in. I'm cashing in big, it's what I do, because I'm a winner.

Mr. Sandpit, that's right people, Mr. Sandpit knows the truth. He knows it. He recognises greatness when he sees it.

Mr. D, so huge, so huge. They're gonna be great.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Turns out Liz Truss does value the judiciary

Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.

High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.

The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judges-set-for-15-per-cent-pay-riseto-tackle-recruitment-crisis-wljxdnkzc

Buttering them up in advance of the case?

SouthamObserver

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

A white supremacist will be a key adviser to the President. How do you think that is going to play in a country in which race-related issues are so sensitive and have caused so much violence in the past?

I consider myself a moderate who respects a democratic choice however much I dislike it. Some on the left are still not listening to what has happened in the past year, resorting to hyperbole and playing every minority card in the book. Surely it is time they paused and started to think why many w/c voters have and are continuing to desert them. If the democrats go all 'Corbyn' on us they are truly doomed. I don't normally associate you with this approach but the angst of the past week is a little overblown.

I find it offensive that you believe I am advocating violence. I am commenting on its possibility. Both the extreme right and the extreme left in the US have used it extensively in matters related to race. I do not think that the presence of a white supremacist in the White House reduces the risks it will happen again.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Turns out Liz Truss does value the judiciary

Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.

High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.

The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judges-set-for-15-per-cent-pay-riseto-tackle-recruitment-crisis-wljxdnkzc

Buttering them up in advance of the case?

Nah, if she wanted to butter them up she wouldn't have given them a pittance of a pay rise.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Turns out Liz Truss does value the judiciary

Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.

High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.

The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judges-set-for-15-per-cent-pay-riseto-tackle-recruitment-crisis-wljxdnkzc

Court of Session Judges get the same. It seems a lot of money and they also get a full pension after 20 years service but most of those appointed during my time at the Scottish bar will have been taking a wage cut of between 50 and 80% to do it. Doesn't seem to be a shortage of candidates though.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, he's not in it. He's not smart enough. I don't have dummies in my books, only the best characters. So attractive, so smart. And lesbians too. I love the gays.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Turns out Liz Truss does value the judiciary

Judges set for 15% pay rise to tackle recruitment crisis.

High Court judges are in line to receive a pay rise of 12 to 15 per cent, angering other public servants and trade unions.

The proposed rise, which has been approved by ministers, emerged in court papers yesterday. The 106 High Court judges receive £179,768 a year. The increase, to take effect from April, will add between £21,572.16 and £26,965.20 to that.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/judges-set-for-15-per-cent-pay-riseto-tackle-recruitment-crisis-wljxdnkzc

Buttering them up in advance of the case?

Nah, if she wanted to butter them up she wouldn't have given them a pittance of a pay rise.

They misheard.. she said 50%!

TheScreamingEagles

Here's an image that might cause a few Tories to faint

Brexit Britain needs to know: is Emperor May naked?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/brexit-britain-emperor-may-naked-strategy-eu-withdrawal

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, Empress*, surely?

not_on_fire

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

DecrepitJohnL

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Tax reform is interesting but remember the cash American companies are hiding overseas was earned overseas and if Trump were elected Prime Minister here, he might think the British exchequer should be the one to tax Starbucks and Apple on UK activity.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Great news, people. The best news. I've written a book, and it's so good, so good. You're gonna love it. It has the best words. I have the best words because I'm a great author. We're making fantasy great again, people.

Amazon US - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N8UF799/
Amazon UK - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N8UF799/
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-ca/ebook/kingdom-asunder-the-bloody-crown-trilogy-volume-one
Barnes & Noble - http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/books/1125052815?ean=2940153811246

Edited extra bit: ahem, forgot the slightly more serious concise description.

It's Kingdom Asunder, the first part of a fantasy trilogy, up for pre-order (out 24 November). Lower price applies from now until 8 December.

It's crammed full of ruthless she-wolves, scheming traitors, and grim knights. Fun for all the family [in seriousness, it isn't. Like knife-wrench, it's not for kids].

Good luck with that, Mr Dancer. I expect that'll be better than armless knights, caged she-wolves and piked traitors.

I'll also take your advice and not read it to the young 'un. Mind, I was playing some Looney Toon cartoons the other day, and I stopped when one of the war time ones had creatures saying Sieg Heil along with the salute. He's probably a little too young to see that ...

In other news, I see Ron Dennis has been ousted from McLaren. A sad day IMO.

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's an image that might cause a few Tories to faint

Brexit Britain needs to know: is Emperor May naked?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/brexit-britain-emperor-may-naked-strategy-eu-withdrawal

Still referring to Deloittes efforts as "a leaked Cabinet Office Memo prepared by external consultants." It was nothing of the sort.

As we discussed yesterday it really is time that the framework of what we want from the EU became clear.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Empress*, surely?

They were probably worried people wouldn't get the allusion if they used that. As an author you will know, never trust your audience.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Empress*, surely?

Nah, Empress can be taken to mean to be the wife of an Emperor.

Emperor can be gender neutral

GeoffM

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Yes; he is still free to do other things. There was even an outside suggestion that, if HRC had won, a Supreme Court space might be an option.

Edit: Boston Globe suggestion is here
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/10/obama-for-supreme-court/ThoNpUFNjAL5PRDuIYrgMJ/story.html

Kevin_McCandless

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Well, there was the $800 billion+ stimulus at the start of his presidency and the $305 transportation infrastructure bill passed in 2015.

DavidL

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Tax reform is interesting but remember the cash American companies are hiding overseas was earned overseas and if Trump were elected Prime Minister here, he might think the British exchequer should be the one to tax Starbucks and Apple on UK activity.

Where it was actually earned depends on transfer pricing and who has the lowest tax rate. But yes, Trump will not be alone in hunting down multinationals as a source of cash.

kle4

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, Empress*, surely?

Nah, Empress can be taken to mean to be the wife of an Emperor.

Emperor can be gender neutral

Empress regent!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, it can be a tightrope. Lay stuff on too thick and readers think you're treating them like idiots. Make stuff too obscure, and twists look deus ex machina.

Mr. Jessop, thanks

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.

I was hoping Barack Obama would do a Taft and become Chief Justice after being President, but that's even more unlikely now, plus John Roberts is young and spry and likely to occupy that seat for the next 20 years at least

RobD

GeoffM said:

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Yes; he is still free to do other things. There was even an outside suggestion that, if HRC had won, a Supreme Court space might be an option.

Edit: Boston Globe suggestion is here
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/10/obama-for-supreme-court/ThoNpUFNjAL5PRDuIYrgMJ/story.html

"in the wake of an electoral debacle by Donald Trump"

Oh dear

DavidL

Kevin_McCandless said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Well, there was the $800 billion+ stimulus at the start of his presidency and the $305 transportation infrastructure bill passed in 2015.

And how much of the $800bn got beyond the financial sector? Not nearly enough. The way the TARP scheme operated was a disgrace. I am not necessarily saying that Trump will do a lot better. But its possible.

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, he's not in it. He's not smart enough. I don't have dummies in my books, only the best characters. So attractive, so smart. And lesbians too. I love the gays.

So let me guess? The protagonists will include a female professional torturer; a master poisoner; a pedophile priest; a vivisectionist; a serial rapist; and a psychopathic barbarian mercenary. And those are the good guys.

rcs1000

Chris_from_Paris said:

After the discussion on the previous thread regarding the French presidential Républicains primary, there is other important news this morning.

Former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron will finally declare officially his candidacy this morning. All press reports indicate he will refuse to take part to the left-wing primary.

Some polls put him quite high (around 20%) just after he resigned from the government in September but it was generally in the most favorable (and unrealistic) scenarios - such as Sarkozy for the right, no centrist (Bayrou) candidacy) and no socialist in the race.

In more realistic scenarios, he would probably contend with Bayrou and Juppe or Fillon for the centre and centre-right vote, while competing with a socialist (Valls, Hollande or Montebourg) for the centre-left.

In this kind of contest, his base seems to be around 12 to 15%. He probably would needd to add around 10% to reach the second round.

He will be very strongly supported by centre-left media and he has raised quite a lot of money (around 3 million euros) without the help of any established party but I remain doubtful of his long-term appeal. His main problem is that most of his message is identified with the centre-right but he tends to call himself a left-winger. His only private job (investment banker) does not resonate very well with traditional socialist voters.

Even if his candidacy does not come as a surprise to anyone, his odds could tighten now that he officially enters the race.

*If* Sarkozy is the LR candidate he has a chance. Otherwise no.

Kevin_McCandless

DavidL said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

Well, there was the $800 billion+ stimulus at the start of his presidency and the $305 transportation infrastructure bill passed in 2015.

And how much of the $800bn got beyond the financial sector? Not nearly enough. The way the TARP scheme operated was a disgrace. I am not necessarily saying that Trump will do a lot better. But its possible.

TARP and the stimulus bill were separate. Beyond $50 billion for corporations, all of the bill went elsewhere.

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.

I was hoping Barack Obama would do a Taft and become Chief Justice after being President, but that's even more unlikely now, plus John Roberts is young and spry and likely to occupy that seat for the next 20 years at least

Trump should send Obama to the Supreme Court as a way of removing two of the Democrats' best campaigners from the 2020 scene.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, buy it, and find out

Nigelb

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

felix said:

SouthamObserver said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Kerry?

He has been a decent Secretary of State.

One will emerge.

The Democrat's big problem will be containing anger. Voter suppression is going to intensify over the coming years and there will be a white supremacist in the office next door to the president in the White House. These things are gifts for people who crave violent confrontation.

Oh dear - the unrelenting negativity is overblown a little. I didn't want Brexit or Trump but in both cases the alternatives were hardly inspiring. The problem with much of the left-wing reaction is the overwhelming stench of sour grapes and the doom mongering is really quite silly. Nothing that has happened so far justifies violent insurrection. Chill.

So what are the Trump positives ?

Still curious if there are any.

I would not have voted for Trump because I find him morally offensive. But his ideas for boosting infrastructure spending in the US are potentially interesting. It is a depressing fact that since 2007 economic policy seems to have been focussed almost exclusively on keeping those bankers who caused the mess with their criminal behaviour in well paid jobs. It would be ironic if it was a Republican President who reminded the Democrats what FDR's new deal in the 1930s was actually all about.

Although it would not necessarily be good for the UK I also think it is way past time that the US had a serious look at whether the unthinking bias in favour of free trade is necessarily a good thing. It is a shibboleth that needs rethinking.

Trump also made some good points earlier in his campaign about tax reform, particularly of the Silicon Valley giants who hide profits overseas. I heard less about that latterly but he may well come back to it. He is an expert on tax avoidance after all.

I'll give you the possibility of increased infrastructure spending - though whether it gets through congress unscathed will be interesting (Obama's infrastructure bill got comprehensively gutted by the Republicans).

Nigelb

kle4 said:

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.

Like Blair and Bill Clinton ?
Be careful what you wish for.

rcs1000

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

FF43 said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

Joe Biden was the impressive campaigner in the recent election, with a common touch that eschews Trump's cynicism. He's yesterday's man too, of course.

Biden should really have been the Democrat candidate. I'm sure his personal problems could have been overcome, it was the whole DNC getting behind Clinton that put him off. If he'd been against Trump he'd have walked it.

Would he though? Remember Biden had twice run for president and flopped. And how does a man who is the sitting vice president run as an outsider like Trump?

He'd only have had to do about 0.2% better than Clinton to end up POTUS.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/business/status/798808002375479296

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. F, buy it, and find out

It appears to be for pre-order only at the moment. The suspense is killing.

not_on_fire

kle4 said:

not_on_fire said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

Interesting thought from the broadcast; who are the Democrats going to put up, not as candidates, as Keiran said it's far too early, but as de facto Opposition leader.
Clinton was barely mentioned, and Sanders was written off.

Bernie Sanders is already 75 years old so is unlikely to be a player four years from now. Perhaps Tim Kaine will be disappointed he is not seen as a contender in his own right but it is hard to recall anything he did as Hillary's VP running-mate.

Although KP in the podcast spoke of LotO, that is not really the right term for next candidate, and nothing at all was said about the Democrat leadership in Congress, or for that matter, what happens to the DNC after the email revelations that it was less than neutral last time.

The likeliest person for such a role, at any rate for the moment, is Obama himself. He remains popular and it is his legislative programme Trump is planning to dismantle or at least scale back.

It's also a role for which, as a superb orator with limited administrative talent, he is far better suited than the Presidency itself.

It does however make it that much harder for a new potential President to emerge.

There's nothing in the constitution stopping Obama running for the Senate or House, is there?

Fun fun fun. Seems a Shame presidents and PMs just call it quits re politics after they leave, focusing on private projects and fundraising.

Turns out there is a precedent: John Quincy Adams joined the House, and Andrew Jackson the Senate after being president.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's an image that might cause a few Tories to faint

Brexit Britain needs to know: is Emperor May naked?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/brexit-britain-emperor-may-naked-strategy-eu-withdrawal

Still referring to Deloittes efforts as "a leaked Cabinet Office Memo prepared by external consultants." It was nothing of the sort.

As we discussed yesterday it really is time that the framework of what we want from the EU became clear.

What do you want, David, how likely are we to get it, and are you in the 'better out on our own and unambiguously economically worse off, than in' group?