politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hamon tops the first round French Socialist primary and looks

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hamon tops the first round French Socialist primary and looks set to be the party’s nominee

Benoit Hamon moves to 4th favourite to the French presidency after a clear win over Manuel Valls in 1st round of Soclalist nomination race pic.twitter.com/1LJ7c1E244

Read the full story here

foxinsoxuk

First like Labour in Copeland and Stoke.

TheScreamingEagles

Massive tip of the hat to Chris from Paris for the Benoît Hamon tip

tlg86

Second like Arsenal.

Edit: Third like Spurs.

HYUFD

Actually all the current polls have Le Pen leading round 1, if anything it is between Fillon and Macron for second and Fillon is closer to Le Pen than Macron to Fillon regardless of the PS candidate. While Hamon may be better for Macron than Valls Hamon also has some of Macron's youthful energy, the candidate Macron really wanted the PS to pick was the protectionist Montebourg who was eliminated

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017

TheWhiteRabbit

Well done people who back him for the nomination - although it isn't over yet. Valls has something to work with, at least. However 33/1 is a joke.

My book is back to £0!!

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

Second like Arsenal.

Edit: Third like Spurs.

Not 2, but 3, which is the minimum number of games stadium ban Arsene Wenger should receive for his disgraceful behaviour today

Sunil_Prasannan

Hamon! Hamon!

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Second like Arsenal.

Edit: Third like Spurs.

Not 2, but 3, which is the minimum number of games stadium ban Arsene Wenger should receive for his disgraceful behaviour today

I dislike Anthony Taylor more than I dislike George Osborne. I'd have told Taylor to do one.

tlg86

And the cream has risen to the top:

http://tinyurl.com/gmqymck

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

And the cream has risen to the top:

http://tinyurl.com/gmqymck

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Second like Arsenal.

Edit: Third like Spurs.

Not 2, but 3, which is the minimum number of games stadium ban Arsene Wenger should receive for his disgraceful behaviour today

I dislike Anthony Taylor more than I dislike George Osborne. I'd have told Taylor to do one.

No matter how rubbish or annoying a referee or umpire is, you must never touch or shove them, that is the way of anarchy.

Chris_from_Paris

Valls is trying the Juppé second round strategy: trying to scare the centrists to hae them reject the core voters' candidate.
I think he won's lose as badly as Juppé did but I can't see him winning.

TheWhiteRabbit

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hamon! Hamon!

It may be FillON against MelénchON against HamON against MacrON.

Shame it wasn't CamerON and ClintON

FrancisUrquhart

Donald Trump paid tribute to the nation's law enforcement officers and first responders at a special gathering at the White House's Blue Room Sunday - but paid attention to one in particular.

Trump was addressing the assembled representatives of the nation's agencies when he called out to Comey, who was hidden away at the back of the room.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4146204/Trump-gives-special-thanks-FBI-head-James-Comey.html

TheScreamingEagles

I'm Paris for most of this week, getting wooed by the French Government and Parisians in general, I shall be PB's man on the spot, and conduct focus groups.

FrancisUrquhart

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

TheScreamingEagles

Normally some PBers are so quick to post links to/cover terrorism...

Police officer shot in Northern Ireland in 'terrorist attack'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/police-officer-shot-northern-ireland-terrorist-attack/

Chris_from_Paris

Regarding Mike's analysis, I am not sure Macron is contending only with Le Pen for the second spot, as Fillon and Le Pen are around the same level (and I say this as a Fillon supporter).

I don't think there are a lot of voters Macron can take from that side so he will have to maximise the centre/centre-left vote and hope that either Fillon or Le Pen is sufficiently weakened by the other.

There is still the question of Bayrou (centrist candidate in 2002 2007 and 2012) running or not. If he does, it would probably limit Macron's potential.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally some PBers are so quick to post links to/cover terrorism...

Police officer shot in Northern Ireland in 'terrorist attack'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/police-officer-shot-northern-ireland-terrorist-attack/

You mean freedom fighters.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally some PBers are so quick to post links to/cover terrorism...

Police officer shot in Northern Ireland in 'terrorist attack'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/police-officer-shot-northern-ireland-terrorist-attack/

You mean freedom fighters.

Religiously motivated terrorists.

FrancisUrquhart

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Normally some PBers are so quick to post links to/cover terrorism...

Police officer shot in Northern Ireland in 'terrorist attack'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/police-officer-shot-northern-ireland-terrorist-attack/

You mean freedom fighters.

"violent dissident republicans"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38712776

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm Paris for most of this week, getting wooed by the French Government and Parisians in general, I shall be PB's man on the spot, and conduct focus groups.

Good Re-moaning! I brung you a massage: I was bruising the PB throds and have just discoovered that The Scramming Ogles is in Poris this wok.

FrancisUrquhart

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm Paris for most of this week, getting wooed by the French Government and Parisians in general, I shall be PB's man on the spot, and conduct focus groups.

Good Re-moaning! I brung you a massage: I was bruising the PB throds and have just discoovered that The Scramming Ogles is in Poris this wok.

The question is will he appropriate The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies...

tim80

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm Paris for most of this week, getting wooed by the French Government and Parisians in general, I shall be PB's man on the spot, and conduct focus groups.

Ask them how they're parents are voting, if they live outside Paris. Otherwise risk of yet more metropolitan groupthink

Sunil_Prasannan

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm Paris for most of this week, getting wooed by the French Government and Parisians in general, I shall be PB's man on the spot, and conduct focus groups.

Good Re-moaning! I brung you a massage: I was bruising the PB throds and have just discoovered that The Scramming Ogles is in Poris this wok.

The question is will he appropriate The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies...

The Foollen Mudonna with the Bug Bobbies!

Sunil_Prasannan

Hamon Hamon looks a bit like Owen Smith!

Philip_Thompson

Interesting how there isn't more discussion/surprise that the traditional mainstream party of the left (Socialists) have dropped from first to fourth place in the expectations.

Especially when compared to the troubles our own left-wing party is having. Is it possible that come 2020 they will have similarly fallen to fourth like their French sister party?

david_herdson

About time I had a long-odds bet do well.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/821512502743863296

Chris_from_Paris

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Hamon Hamon looks a bit like Owen Smith!

He looks and sounds like what he is: a socialist apparatchik that followed the usual path -> student union leader, "Young socialist" leader, ministerial advisor, carpetbagging candidate in 4 different places, MEP, and finally MP at 45 (for one week, before he was named minister)

Chris_from_Paris

Philip_Thompson said:

Interesting how there isn't more discussion/surprise that the traditional mainstream party of the left (Socialists) have dropped from first to fourth place in the expectations.

Especially when compared to the troubles our own left-wing party is having. Is it possible that come 2020 they will have similarly fallen to fourth like their French sister party?

Not sure, but Hamon considers Corbyn a model for French socialists!

BudG

Chris_from_Paris said:

Regarding Mike's analysis, I am not sure Macron is contending only with Le Pen for the second spot, as Fillon and Le Pen are around the same level (and I say this as a Fillon supporter).

I don't think there are a lot of voters Macron can take from that side so he will have to maximise the centre/centre-left vote and hope that either Fillon or Le Pen is sufficiently weakened by the other.

There is still the question of Bayrou (centrist candidate in 2002 2007 and 2012) running or not. If he does, it would probably limit Macron's potential.

I would actually say that Macron has far more chance of catching Fillon than Le Pen. Le Pen's support is very solid and shows signs of a slight increase if anything. Fillon on the other hand is slipping backwards. December polls had him roughly 27-29%, January polls have him 24-25%. Meanwhile, Macron has increased fromm mid-teens to late teens early 20's from December to January.

Macron has forward momentum, Fillon has reverse momentum and Valls demise can only stengthen Macron even further.

MikeK

The guy with the original 5 o'clock shadow!

FrancisUrquhart

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

peter_from_putney

david_herdson said:

About time I had a long-odds bet do well.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/821512502743863296

Good luck with that one! You'd be better advised to back Hamon at 75 with Betfair (where there's £11 currently available) and hope to trade him out profitably should his star continue to rise.
DYOR.

MTimT

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

edmundintokyo

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

So the irony here is that the main impetus for wanting to leave the EU over the years has been the idea of a free-trading, small-government bloc of English-speaking countries. But it's happening just as the US and the UK are going interventionist and protectionist. Meanwhile the EU that they're leaving is still committed to free markets and has meaningful protection against state aid.

CarlottaVance

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

It looks more like 'enabling' rather than 'picking industrial champions' of old:

A green paper will set out ways the government can provide support to businesses by addressing regulatory barriers, agreeing trade deals and helping to establish institutions that encourage innovation and skills development.
Smart energy, robotics, artificial intelligence and 5G mobile network technology are some of the areas that could receive support through a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, according to Downing Street.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/823346736659910658

MTimT

Worth a read:

https://www.ft.com/content/69a92106-df03-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce

European leaders still in denial about Trump and Brexit.

MTimT

Is it just me, or is the FT changing its tune on Brexit?

https://www.ft.com/content/9edbbcca-e094-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb

Suddenly, the banks shouldn't worry about their passports.

CarlottaVance

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

It looks more like 'enabling' rather than 'picking industrial champions' of old:

A green paper will set out ways the government can provide support to businesses by addressing regulatory barriers, agreeing trade deals and helping to establish institutions that encourage innovation and skills development.
Smart energy, robotics, artificial intelligence and 5G mobile network technology are some of the areas that could receive support through a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, according to Downing Street.

The BBC take:

Industrial strategy: a helping hand, not taking the wheel
Today's industrial strategy is an attempt to lend a helping hand without having both on the steering wheel. The best way to do that, thinks the government, is to provide something that just about everyone agrees is needed and provide it in a location-appropriate way to sectors where we are already pretty successful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714252

rkrkrk

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

AlsoIndigo

rkrkrk said:

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

Like the kippers getting 1 seat per 3,881,129 voters and the LDs getting 1 seat per 301,986 voters ?

williamglenn

MTimT said:

Worth a read:

https://www.ft.com/content/69a92106-df03-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce

European leaders still in denial about Trump and Brexit.

The usual from Münchau. He was also predicting the Euro would disintegrate after the Italian referendum.

SouthamObserver

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

SouthamObserver

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

All things being equal it is a very worrying scenario for the Democrats. But there will be years when not all things are equal - when, for example, Blue voters will be far more motivated than Red voters. The key, it seems, is for Democrats to win power in states and then to address some of the issues that hold them back - gerrymandering and voter suppression, among them. As you say, long-term the majority not getting what it wants is going to be a big problem. This probably applies most with regards to the Supreme Court.

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

Interesting that the US trade deal, Indian one and Australian one all involve allowing freer movement of workers. Brexiteers usually tell us that movement of people is irrelevant to free trade.

FormerToryOrange

edmundintokyo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

So the irony here is that the main impetus for wanting to leave the EU over the years has been the idea of a free-trading, small-government bloc of English-speaking countries. But it's happening just as the US and the UK are going interventionist and protectionist. Meanwhile the EU that they're leaving is still committed to free markets and has meaningful protection against state aid.

Is the meaningful protection against state aid the system whereby states pay massive contributions to the EU, who then distribute it as state aid to whom they see fit? Interesting thought, but I suppose nobody can say the French state is subsidising it's own farmers.

JonnyJimmy

foxinsoxuk said:

Brexiteers usually tell us that movement of people is irrelevant to free trade.

Can you quote even one serious person who's said that?

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

logical_song

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

... or Trump could self destruct.

rkrkrk

AlsoIndigo said:

rkrkrk said:

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

Like the kippers getting 1 seat per 3,881,129 voters and the LDs getting 1 seat per 301,986 voters ?

That is an issue... But it is a lesser issue I think with respect to sustainability of the system.
AV would have been a great way to address this IMO.

Sean_F

logical_song said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

... or Trump could self destruct.

He could, but the Democrats' longer-term problem would remain.

logical_song

AlsoIndigo said:

rkrkrk said:

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

Like the kippers getting 1 seat per 3,881,129 voters and the LDs getting 1 seat per 301,986 voters ?

and the Tories one seat with 34,244 votes.

rkrkrk

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

Thanks for the response - but I sort of disagree and feel more optimistic.

I think Democrats would have happily renominated Obama if allowed.
And his rural vote numbers are good enough to win.

DavidL

Who wins the nomination for the French socialists seems relevant for betting purposes but about as relevant to the leadership of UKIP to who wins the Presidential election. I remember Ed Miliband holding up Hollande as a shining example to follow but he has not only trashed himself but his party as a serious force in French politics. It is questionable if even Corbyn can achieve that.

Casino_Royale

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

I still find it shocking Hillary Clinton said that.

What was she thinking? Was she thinking?

Sean_F

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

I still find it shocking Hillary Clinton said that.

What was she thinking? Was she thinking?

I find it shocking and I don't. I find it shocking that a professional politician could say something so stupid. But, I don't find it shocking that a New York liberal would hold such a view.

williamglenn

I'm not sure if there was method in his approach, but Macron has shown what the centre-left should have done here. By striking out on his own before the takeover of the PS by the loony left, he has positioned himself to climb over its corpse, instead of being dragged down with it.

Perhaps if an SDP2 had happened before the EU referendum, we also wouldn't be where we are on Brexit.

logical_song

williamglenn said:

I'm not sure if there was method in his approach, but Macron has shown what the centre-left should have done here. By striking out on his own before the takeover of the PS by the loony left, he has positioned himself to climb over its corpse, instead of being dragged down with it.

Perhaps if an SDP2 had happened before the EU referendum, we also wouldn't be where we are on Brexit.

Or if anyone but Corbyn had been Labour Leader. Margaret Beckett and Sadiq Khan have a lot to answer for.

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

Thanks for the response - but I sort of disagree and feel more optimistic.

I think Democrats would have happily renominated Obama if allowed.
And his rural vote numbers are good enough to win.

I think Obama's rural numbers would have been worse than in 2012, but better than Clinton's. So, he'd have eked out wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and won the ECV 278-260.

IanB2

DavidL said:

Who wins the nomination for the French socialists seems relevant for betting purposes but about as relevant to the leadership of UKIP to who wins the Presidential election. I remember Ed Miliband holding up Hollande as a shining example to follow but he has not only trashed himself but his party as a serious force in French politics. It is questionable if even Corbyn can achieve that.

Corbyn is more of a slow burn. Although they would still have most of their troubles without him.

rkrkrk

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

I still find it shocking Hillary Clinton said that.

What was she thinking? Was she thinking?

I find it shocking and I don't. I find it shocking that a professional politician could say something so stupid. But, I don't find it shocking that a New York liberal would hold such a view.

Out of interest... Do you see it as worse than Obama's remarks around bitter rural people clinging to guns and religion?

Mortimer

SouthamObserver said:

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

Indeed. It is the only likely outcome that would be acceptable to both parties.

I'm not convinced we'll see a large number of new trade deals that see mass transfer of sovereignty away from the people to courts as the West sees relative decline. More trade deals re: goods only - probably.

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

I still find it shocking Hillary Clinton said that.

What was she thinking? Was she thinking?

I find it shocking and I don't. I find it shocking that a professional politician could say something so stupid. But, I don't find it shocking that a New York liberal would hold such a view.

Out of interest... Do you see it as worse than Obama's remarks around bitter rural people clinging to guns and religion?

I think Obama could get away with that in 2008, when there was far greater momentum towards the Democrats, but it was still an unwise comment.

logical_song

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

Interesting that the US trade deal, Indian one and Australian one all involve allowing freer movement of workers. Brexiteers usually tell us that movement of people is irrelevant to free trade.

Will UKIP produce a poster showing 300 million Americans having the right to live in the UK?

Charles

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

A bit like in California where the GOP was not permitted to run a candidate for Senate?

rkrkrk

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

Thanks for the response - but I sort of disagree and feel more optimistic.

I think Democrats would have happily renominated Obama if allowed.
And his rural vote numbers are good enough to win.

I think Obama's rural numbers would have been worse than in 2012, but better than Clinton's. So, he'd have eked out wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and won the ECV 278-260.

That seems very plausible to me.
Obama also better at driving turnout with African Americans and young people too I think.

Charles

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/823346736659910658

The sentence that says the sole purpose of the calls was the logistics of arranging a conversation between President-Elect Trump and the Ambassador is quite important.

But it's buried halfway down the article and you'd never guess it from the headline

IanB2

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

As I understood it the link between burned food and cancer was already established and is old news. Isn't it part of the explanation for it being a modern (in evolutionary terms) disease?

not_on_fire

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

A bit like in California where the GOP was not permitted to run a candidate for Senate?

Oh dear, you're posting this nonsense about California again. No, the 3rd most popular candidate not making it into the final two of a runoff election is not anything like incontrovertible eveidence of gerrymandering congressional districts or deliberately closing polling stations in Democratic voting areas.

(Incidentally, it always seems to be CA you cite as the example, not LA which uses the same system)

dugarbandier

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/823346736659910658

The sentence that says the sole purpose of the calls was the logistics of arranging a conversation between President-Elect Trump and the Ambassador is quite important.

But it's buried halfway down the article and you'd never guess it from the headline

and who was it who said that? .. comical Sean Spicer

(also, not only the calls on Dec 29th under investigation)

Roger

An interview with Megan Kelly and 'the question that changed her life'.

Really interesting in that it shows what a creature Trump is and what a talent she is. Totally incomprehensible that any sentient being could vote for him

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/megyn-kelly-and-the-question-that-changed-her-life-forever/

matt

CarlottaVance said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pound-shop Gordon Brown Ed Miliband....

The prime minister is to unveil a new, more interventionist, industrial strategy on Monday, designed to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

The government will be "stepping up to a new, active role," Mrs May said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38713327

It looks more like 'enabling' rather than 'picking industrial champions' of old:

A green paper will set out ways the government can provide support to businesses by addressing regulatory barriers, agreeing trade deals and helping to establish institutions that encourage innovation and skills development.
Smart energy, robotics, artificial intelligence and 5G mobile network technology are some of the areas that could receive support through a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, according to Downing Street.

The BBC take:

Industrial strategy: a helping hand, not taking the wheel
Today's industrial strategy is an attempt to lend a helping hand without having both on the steering wheel. The best way to do that, thinks the government, is to provide something that just about everyone agrees is needed and provide it in a location-appropriate way to sectors where we are already pretty successful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38714252

Picking winners. Just wait until we get a Corbyn-lite government. The EU kept this in check....

logical_song

Trump - Welcome to the world of 'Alternative Facts'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-pushes-‘alternative-facts’-here-are-the-real-ones/ar-AAm7yEL

Sean_F

Roger said:

An interview with Megan Kelly and 'the question that changed her life'.

Really interesting in that it shows what a creature Trump is and what a talent she is. Totally incomprehensible that any sentient being could vote for him

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/megyn-kelly-and-the-question-that-changed-her-life-forever/

People looked at the alternative.

foxinsoxuk

logical_song said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

Interesting that the US trade deal, Indian one and Australian one all involve allowing freer movement of workers. Brexiteers usually tell us that movement of people is irrelevant to free trade.

Will UKIP produce a poster showing 300 million Americans having the right to live in the UK?

I suspect they will use Indians rather than cowboys.

Roger

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

An interview with Megan Kelly and 'the question that changed her life'.

Really interesting in that it shows what a creature Trump is and what a talent she is. Totally incomprehensible that any sentient being could vote for him

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/megyn-kelly-and-the-question-that-changed-her-life-forever/

People looked at the alternative.

I don't think ypu'll find anything in Hillary's file that comes anywhere near in terms of repulsiveness.

not_on_fire

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

An interview with Megan Kelly and 'the question that changed her life'.

Really interesting in that it shows what a creature Trump is and what a talent she is. Totally incomprehensible that any sentient being could vote for him

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/megyn-kelly-and-the-question-that-changed-her-life-forever/

People looked at the alternative.

And a majority voted for it

Theuniondivvie

dugarbandier said:

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/823346736659910658

The sentence that says the sole purpose of the calls was the logistics of arranging a conversation between President-Elect Trump and the Ambassador is quite important.

But it's buried halfway down the article and you'd never guess it from the headline

and who was it who said that? .. comical Sean Spicer

(also, not only the calls on Dec 29th under investigation)

Disgraceful use of alternative facts.

dugarbandier

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

An interview with Megan Kelly and 'the question that changed her life'.

Really interesting in that it shows what a creature Trump is and what a talent she is. Totally incomprehensible that any sentient being could vote for him

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/megyn-kelly-and-the-question-that-changed-her-life-forever/

People looked at the alternative.

at the alternative facts

rcs1000

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

A bit like in California where the GOP was not permitted to run a candidate for Senate?

I thought the way California worked was that the Republican and Democrat primaries (and anyone else for that matter) are merged into one. And any voter may vote for any candidate.

The effect of this is that California's primary works exactly like the two round system of the French Presidential election.

DecrepitJohnL

Charles said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/susan_hennessey/status/823346736659910658

The sentence that says the sole purpose of the calls was the logistics of arranging a conversation between President-Elect Trump and the Ambassador is quite important.

But it's buried halfway down the article and you'd never guess it from the headline

It is buried just after the White House said there was no basis for an investigation, suggesting at best a degree of confusion in the new team.

Sean_F

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

Thanks for the response - but I sort of disagree and feel more optimistic.

I think Democrats would have happily renominated Obama if allowed.
And his rural vote numbers are good enough to win.

I think Obama's rural numbers would have been worse than in 2012, but better than Clinton's. So, he'd have eked out wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and won the ECV 278-260.

That seems very plausible to me.
Obama also better at driving turnout with African Americans and young people too I think.

Looking at the numbers again, Trump actually led Clinton by 48-46% in cities with 500,000 to a million inhabitants. It's in the million plus cities that Clinton ran up the score.

dugarbandier

https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/823333204815990784

some more alternatives

not_on_fire

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bloody Fake News....

the advice is based on experiments on mice, rather than any studies showing that acrylamide causes cancer in people...It is also not known whether even a diet high in browned foods such as well-done roast potatoes could expose a person to enough of the chemical to risk triggering the cancer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/government-warning-roast-potato-cancer-link-massive-overreaction/

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

A bit like in California where the GOP was not permitted to run a candidate for Senate?

I thought the way California worked was that the Republican and Democrat primaries (and anyone else for that matter) are merged into one. And any voter may vote for any candidate.

The effect of this is that California's primary works exactly like the two round system of the French Presidential election.

Indeed, saying the GOP were "not allowed" to run a candidate is an alternative fact

Innocent_Abroad

Clearly feminism doesn't play much part on the French Left...

rcs1000

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

I'm always somewhat sceptical of these arguments. I remember being told in 1993 that the boundary changes meant "Labour could never win again."

If the Dems manage to get to +4 or +5 in the popular vote share, I think (even with inefficiently spread vote) they'll probably make it. Can they get to +4/+5? Here's how the last few elections have gone:

2016 R+1
2014 R+6
2012 D+1
2010 R+7
2008 D+9
2006 D+8
2004 R+3
2002 R+5
2000 -
1998 R+1

As you can see, when the Dems are in the White House there are swings to them, and when the Repubs are there it goes the other way. (The exception being 2002 when I think 9/11 skews it.)

The moves can be huge. 2006->2008 saw the Dems go fro 3 behind to 8 ahead! Likewise 2010, saw the Repubs go from 9 behind to 7 ahead.

So, while the Republicans should probably be favourite to hold the House, the swing required is by no means an unusual one for a mid-term.

BannedInParis

I think this opens things up quite massively for Macron.

rcs1000

BannedInParis said:

I think this opens things up quite massively for Macron.

All we need now is for Bayrou to endorse him..

rcs1000

I love the American system. The mid terms are just next year

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Paris, let's hope you're right. Allez, Macron!

I don't think I've ever had a winning bet on a leadership or presidential candidate.

another_richard

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

rkrkrk said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

It's a fascinating piece.

What struck me was Barack Obama broke 40% in rural areas in 2008 and a bit under in 2012.
Hilary polled 30%. He was hardly an ideal candidate for rural America but still crushed her by more than 10 points comparing to 2008.

I do think that is reversible with the right candidate.

Long term it can't be sustainable to have once side winning more votes and the other side winning more representation.

It's reversible - if the Democrats want to reverse it. Until recently, they were competitive in much or rural/small/medium town America, if not at Presidential level, certainly at Senate and Congressional level. They could be again, but they'd have to compromise with the Deplorables, and this is a party in no mood for compromise.

I still find it shocking Hillary Clinton said that.

What was she thinking? Was she thinking?

I find it shocking and I don't. I find it shocking that a professional politician could say something so stupid. But, I don't find it shocking that a New York liberal would hold such a view.

Hilary didn't want those votes.

She sees the world in a very 'for and against' manner and having those people vote against her would justify their persecution after she had won.

And she thought she had enough other votes to guarantee victory - she had bought into her own echo chamber talk of 'progressive majorities'.

This is very revealing about her campaign:

' Former Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania also said he had encouraged campaign aides at Mrs. Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters to spread their vast resources outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and focus on rural white pockets of the state. “We had the resources to do both,” Mr. Rendell said Wednesday. “The campaign — and this was coming from Brooklyn — didn’t want to do it.” (Mr. Trump won Pennsylvania by one percentage point.) '

They had the resources to campaign in the rural areas and they were asked to campaign in the rural areas but they didn't want to campaign in the rural areas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

I'm always somewhat sceptical of these arguments. I remember being told in 1993 that the boundary changes meant "Labour could never win again."

If the Dems manage to get to +4 or +5 in the popular vote share, I think (even with inefficiently spread vote) they'll probably make it. Can they get to +4/+5? Here's how the last few elections have gone:

2016 R+1
2014 R+6
2012 D+1
2010 R+7
2008 D+9
2006 D+8
2004 R+3
2002 R+5
2000 -
1998 R+1

As you can see, when the Dems are in the White House there are swings to them, and when the Repubs are there it goes the other way. (The exception being 2002 when I think 9/11 skews it.)

The moves can be huge. 2006->2008 saw the Dems go fro 3 behind to 8 ahead! Likewise 2010, saw the Repubs go from 9 behind to 7 ahead.

So, while the Republicans should probably be favourite to hold the House, the swing required is by no means an unusual one for a mid-term.

The Senate is different, though. Each State elects two, regardless of population. Not a problem when both parties are competitive in small rural States, but potentially a real problem now for the Democrats. In 2018, the Democrats are defending 25 seats, compared to 8 Republicans. 5 Democratic seats are in States that Trump carried by 18-42%, and five more are in Red States. Senators can build big personal votes, but it's a tall order to hold these.

HYUFD

MTimT said:

Once again, truly exceptional work from Sean Trende et al:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/20/how_trump_won_--_conclusions_132846.html

As I pointed out in response to HYUFD last night, it is hard to see where the Dems will pick up enough to take the House. Their vote is just too inefficiently distributed.

To me, the most surprising part of Trende's analysis is his conclusion that the Senate now effectively has a GOP gerrymander.

All very interesting but Sean Trende was saying Trump had lost even on election night so I would not take anything from that article to mean the Democrats won't take the House. Mid term elections are almost always referendums on the president and never about the opposition party, on the swings to the opposition in 1982, 1994, 2006 and 2010 the Democrats would win a majority and given Trump's present approval rating is now lower than Reagan, Clinton, George W Bush and Obama's when they took office to already rule out a Democratic gain of the House completely two years before the midterms is absurd. The Senate may be unlikely to fall in 2018 given the seats up but 2020 is far more possible

Scott_P

SouthamObserver said:

(though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

1 million is now the American standard unit of crowd size...

https://twitter.com/alxwinter/status/823026509912952832

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

Looks like the trade deal with the US being mooted is extremely limited in scope. The big change will be making it easier for Americans to live in the UK (though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/theresa-may-donald-trump-hold-talks-trade-deal-cuts-tariffs/

Interesting that the US trade deal, Indian one and Australian one all involve allowing freer movement of workers. Brexiteers usually tell us that movement of people is irrelevant to free trade.

All involving visas

HYUFD

BannedInParis said:

I think this opens things up quite massively for Macron.

Montebourg would have been Macron's preferred candidate though Hamon helps him more than Valls, however on the latest polls it is still a Le Pen v Fillon run off even with Hamon PS candidate and no Bayrou. Bayrou may endorse Macron but then so may Hollande

logical_song

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

(though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

1 million is now the American standard unit of crowd size...

https://twitter.com/alxwinter/status/823026509912952832

Isn't he supposed to be clever?

Jonathan

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

SouthamObserver said:

(though you do have to wonder about an article which states that one million Americans already work in the UK, when the actual figure is only about 20% of that).

1 million is now the American standard unit of crowd size...

https://twitter.com/alxwinter/status/823026509912952832

That's hilarious.

I confess I find Trump fascinating. He's like an alpha male cubed, to the power of King Dong, fuelled by testosterone made from silverback gorillas on Jupiter. More importantly, I think he actually and sincerely believes everything he says, even when it is a clear lie.

I had a very charming, roguish friend who had this skill: complete self belief, and total trust in the truth of his lies, and it made him an amazing salesman. I watched him swindle people and leave them smiling. I watched him persuade barmen he'd just met, to cash cheques with no guarantee card.

The paradox is that this might make Trump a very effective president. Or a disaster.

He'll get things done. Sadly they will be the wrong things and he will store up resentment.