Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ted Cruz is running ads like this then I’m concluding his c

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited September 11 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ted Cruz is running ads like this then I’m concluding his campaign is in trouble

Ted Cruz is using doctored footage to make it look like Beto O'Rourke supports flag burning (he doesn't) pic.twitter.com/e7d04WK0Dp

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,769
    What, first?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,769
    Those are some pretty horrible numbers for Trump and, if mirrored in other polls, would mark the first substantial cracking in his core base support.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,028
    Ted Cruz favourables are net negative, in Texas, so that doesn't help him either.

    I think Texas and Florida could both flip this time around, which would be mildly amusing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    And here’s a message from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, also in trouble:
    Emptiness is the place you're in
    There's nothing to lose but no more to win
    The sun ain't gonna shine anymore...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020. ...

    Who for, though ?
    And how does the party disassociate itself from him ?

    If they hang on to the Senate, which I agree looks more likely than not, I just don’t see how that happens. If they get an utter shellacking in November then things might change, but for now, the Republicans are seen as, and are in every way, the party of Trump.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,028
    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level....
    Do you mean crazy, or just rather left wing ?
    If the latter, isn’t that just the Democrats trying to pull off the trick of remaining a broad church ? It’s certainly true that there seems to have been a growing frustration about lack of representation on the left of the party, but radical does not necessarily mean crazy.
    I’d be interested who you have in mind, as my knowledge is far from encyclopaedic.

    In any event, the real crazies seem to be on the other side of the political divide.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,028
    Re the US, worth noting that Mitt Romney will become a Republican Senator (unless the Dems win Utah, which seems... unlikely), and he is notoriously independently minded. So, in a 50:50 split world, and especially given Susan Collins in Maine is up for re-election in 2020, then the Senate might pose Trump quite a lot of trouble.
  • Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level....
    Do you mean crazy, or just rather left wing ?
    If the latter, isn’t that just the Democrats trying to pull off the trick of remaining a broad church ? It’s certainly true that there seems to have been a growing frustration about lack of representation on the left of the party, but radical does not necessarily mean crazy.
    I’d be interested who you have in mind, as my knowledge is far from encyclopaedic.

    In any event, the real crazies seem to be on the other side of the political divide.
    The Dems seem to be doing this mostly right at the moment, picking some strongly liberal candidates in their safe districts but compromising with the voters in places they need to flip.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,440
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    You have too little faith in Putin, Comrade...he will see to it that his Little Helper gets enough "help".
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,440

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    You have too little faith in Putin, Comrade...he will see to it that his Little Helper gets enough "help".
    A state visit from The Dear Leader in North Korea the day before voting will also ensure a 99.999% vote for Trump and the GOP. A new branch of Dictators4Us coming to a country near you soon ....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    It certainly won’t be dull, that’s for sure! As you say, the potential for differential turnout is a big one - will Trump’s fans turn out to vote for a generic Republican rather than the man himself?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Good morning, everyone.

    Put a small sum on. A few F1 markets are up, but most not yet. Will check when the full set's up for potential early bets. The win market indicates the bookies reckon it'll be a three horse race.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 44,874
    edited September 11
    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    It is quite possible, the GOP candidates are trailing in states they hold like Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee and now Texas is almost tied while the Democrats lead in most states they hold.

    Even if the GOP lose the House and Senate though Trump should not be completely written off, Bill Clinton saw the Democrats lose the House and Senate in 1994 and was re elected and both Eisenhower in 1954 and Truman in 1946 also saw their parties lose the House and Senate in their first midterms and were re elected.

    As long as his base is behind him Trump also likely wins the primaries again
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    You have too little faith in Putin, Comrade...he will see to it that his Little Helper gets enough "help".
    A state visit from The Dear Leader in North Korea the day before voting will also ensure a 99.999% vote for Trump and the GOP. A new branch of Dictators4Us coming to a country near you soon ....
    That 0.001% that can't bring themselves to vote for him, they'll be the media......churning out fake news.

    And Hillary.
  • Nigelb said:

    The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    I can't argue the point.
    I remain puzzled.
  • The odds on the Democrats in Texas are unattractive. Which polls have put them ahead? None that I've seen. They regularly flatter to deceive there, and I'm not sure you can read much into Cruz running an aggressive ad (that's just how US politics goes and not a particular indicator he's in big trouble).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    edited September 11

    Nigelb said:

    The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

    An uglier Piers Morgan, covered in slap as he goes out to do panto in Hartlepool....as Widow T'wanker
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252

    Nigelb said:

    The still from that video looks like an uglier Piers Morgan, so you can see why he’s in trouble.

    An uglier Piers Morgan, covered in slap as he goes out to do panto in Hartlepool....as Widow T'wanker
    Do you mind?

    Some of us are eating!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    Of course, it may be that Cruz is in no trouble at all, he has just watched Trump's successful methods and thought to himself "I'm having some of that...."
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,904
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,009
    In 2012, Ted Cruz won Texas by the same margin as Mitt Romney achieved. In an off year when the president has alienated some of the traditional Republican voters in a state that has been trending to the Democrats, we might well see an upset.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    edited September 11

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,887
    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters
  • Sandpit said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    It certainly won’t be dull, that’s for sure! As you say, the potential for differential turnout is a big one - will Trump’s fans turn out to vote for a generic Republican rather than the man himself?
    That question might be better posed the other way round: will voters who have deserted Trump nevertheless support mainstream GOP candidates?
  • Becomes hard to see many paths for the GOP to win the Presidency were Texas to regularly become a blue state. Trump would have by my maths won by 5 electoral votes in 2016.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    On topic, backing the Dems to take the House at over 1.55 on Betfair seems a far better bet than backing the Republicans to keep the senate for all sorts of reasons.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188

    The odds on the Democrats in Texas are unattractive. Which polls have put them ahead? None that I've seen. They regularly flatter to deceive there, and I'm not sure you can read much into Cruz running an aggressive ad (that's just how US politics goes and not a particular indicator he's in big trouble).

    A good indication he's in trouble is the number of Republicans who despise him suddenly getting on board with his re-election campaign. notably Including "Lyin' Ted" Trump.

    I wouldn't say the odds are particularly attractive (O'Rourke is still behind in the polls) but it's also notable who has raised the most money.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    Why would they be losing states in this year? Local issues? This doesn't seem like a year for blue losses otherwise.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    Sandpit said:

    JackW said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    There are some significant cross currents that may shake the tree very substantially. Differential turnout being the primary one.

    Will the 2016 "shy Trump" voters rally to his cause again to protect a GOP congress and Donald's agenda? Against which is a more motivated Democrat base, mid term blues and a tendency for US voters, after a short period, to trim the sails of a party having control of all arms of the federal government.

    The joker in the pack is of course the President himself. His wildly unpredictable and narcissistic actions will continue to dominate all through to election day. My sense is that the day after the election Donald will be having a fit of the vapours as the electorate sock him with a wet haddock round his ample chops.

    It will be damned as a fake election by Trump and the whole ghastly roadshow will continue to shock, entertain, disgust and amuse us in equal measure. Dull it will not be.
    It certainly won’t be dull, that’s for sure! As you say, the potential for differential turnout is a big one - will Trump’s fans turn out to vote for a generic Republican rather than the man himself?
    Voter registration will also figure - there's another month to go before the deadline.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748

    Good morning, everyone.

    Put a small sum on. A few F1 markets are up, but most not yet. Will check when the full set's up for potential early bets. The win market indicates the bookies reckon it'll be a three horse race.

    I know we are not believing weather forecasts for F1 races this year, but there’s rumours of rain around the time of the race on Sunday. On that basis I’m in for a half-stake on Lewis at 4.8 (Betfair).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    edited September 11
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.
    Betfair have a three-way market on the Senate, with no overall control being the middle option (maybe some value at 3.95) and it being made clear in the bet rules that independents are just that, even if they caucus with one side or the other.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,450

    The odds on the Democrats in Texas are unattractive. Which polls have put them ahead? None that I've seen. They regularly flatter to deceive there, and I'm not sure you can read much into Cruz running an aggressive ad (that's just how US politics goes and not a particular indicator he's in big trouble).

    I agree Cruz will hold on; however the fact that race is so close suggests there will be a significant swing against Republicans elsewhere.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    Good piece, and a worthwhile reminder that most of the public don’t follow things as much as we do.

    But 60% of all voters still agree with the statement: “I no longer care how or when we leave the EU, I just want it over and done with.”

    “ “I don’t think I’ve heard anything about Brexit since the vote itself,” one young voter declares in a focus group. The participants were selected for readiness to switch between leave and remain positions.“
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,194
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.
    Betfair have a three-way market on the Senate, with no overall control being the middle option (maybe some value at 3.95) and it being made clear in the bet rules that independents are just that, even if they caucus with one side or the other.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987
    I agree on those rules that NOC looks the value bet. I am not sure that these small margins make much difference (other than for betting purposes of course) for Trump on most business,however, as it will still be easy to block legislation. It might mean he has more problems with his nominees for the SC.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Sandpit, been checking the forecast a bit and it seems mostly dry.

    If it does rain, I might prefer a different tack, given the top three teams are seen as roughly equal. Something like Hulkenberg/Alonso to do well, or someone like Sirotkin to score points, Leclerc top 6, etc.

    Probably go back and check the relative pace in Monaco, if I go down that route.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922
    edited September 11
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,754

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    Why would they be losing states in this year? Local issues? This doesn't seem like a year for blue losses otherwise.
    Because they are defending deep red states that they picked up on the back of Obama's 2012 win.

    The Dem map is horrible and with a regular generic Rep president or Hillary in charge we'd be looking at huge Dem losses.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,904
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is seen as a drag on the Republican ticket in the mid terms, there’s a decent chance that he’ll be challenged in the primaries in 2020.

    Can’t see the GOP losing the Senate though, if they do then Trump will be a lame duck for two years.

    Here's the thing: Republicans who don't back the President get "primaried", so they swing behind Trump to head of challenges, which makes them vulnerable to Democrats. And while the Democrats have chosen some crazy candidates at the Congressional level, their Senate picks are mostly pretty sensible.

    I think the Dems will pick up Nevada, which is moving ever Blue-er. I think they'll fall just short in Arizona and Tennessee. I think they'll hang on Florida, West Virginia, and Montana. I suspect they'll lose Missouri and North Dakota.

    And they may well gain Texas, simply because Cruz is toxic.

    Which probably leaves the Senate stuck at 51-49.
    My expectation is that they will pick up Arizona. The latest poll had the republican 1% up but all the previous polls had the Dem in the lead. I suspect McCain made that seat look a little safer than it actually was. My guess at the moment is that the Senate goes Democratic 51-49 but whether that is a win for those betting on it will depend on how the 2 independents who sit with the democrats are treated. My understanding is that the bet the Dems win the Senate will be a loser.
    Betfair have a three-way market on the Senate, with no overall control being the middle option (maybe some value at 3.95) and it being made clear in the bet rules that independents are just that, even if they caucus with one side or the other.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27938931/market?marketId=1.131974987
    I agree on those rules that NOC looks the value bet. I am not sure that these small margins make much difference (other than for betting purposes of course) for Trump on most business,however, as it will still be easy to block legislation. It might mean he has more problems with his nominees for the SC.
    Good to see someone agree with me on the value, maybe I’ll go in for a fiver.

    Day to day of course, you’re right that the two independents are Democrats for most purposes, if the Republicans come out with only 49 or 50 seats, Trump will be a lame duck for two years and unable to pass pretty much anything.

    Ironically this situation could well backfire on the Democrats, as it will give the big man with the funny hair an excuse in 2020 as to why he needs another term to finish making America great again.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 21,922

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,123

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    ... until their job moves to the EU.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748

    Mr. Sandpit, been checking the forecast a bit and it seems mostly dry.

    If it does rain, I might prefer a different tack, given the top three teams are seen as roughly equal. Something like Hulkenberg/Alonso to do well, or someone like Sirotkin to score points, Leclerc top 6, etc.

    Probably go back and check the relative pace in Monaco, if I go down that route.

    The problem with Singapore in September is that it rains pretty much every day, the difficulty is in predicting what time. Usually the storms come late morning at the heat starts to build, but occasionally they go all day or arrive at sunset - as happened last year. Remember the race starts just after 8pm local time. I think the statistic is that Lewis has won all of the last nine races in which intermediate tyres featured.

    Even in the dry it’s always a very attritional race, will run very close to the two hour limit in hot and humid conditions - so there’s definitely some value in working out which of the back runners will score the points. Safety car is a dead cert, and I’m not expecting more than 15 finishers - no sign of those markets on the exchange yet though.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    ... until their job moves to the EU.
    thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,592
    OT. What's happened to John McDonnell? He's morphed from avuncular great uncle to something quite creepy.

    Must be mixing with his old union buddies.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    And the Scottish system allowed much more flexibility that in England, where only three or four choices are made at 16. I did Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Economics at A level, dropped History, Geography and Latin at 14.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,904
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    Roger said:

    OT. What's happened to John McDonnell? He's morphed from avuncular great uncle to something quite creepy.

    Must be mixing with his old union buddies.....

    That avuncular great uncle act was never remotely convincing.....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,904
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III - the best explanation I can give is that in 1831 he was locked up in Ham for treason. Most people would have seen this as a career-ending disgrace. He saw it as an excellent opportunity to get the teenage girl who did his laundry repeatedly pregnant.

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    And the Scottish system allowed much more flexibility that in England, where only three or four choices are made at 16. I did Maths, Further Maths, Physics and Economics at A level, dropped History, Geography and Latin at 14.
    Very much the same as myself, although I was on the Biological Sciences side: Botany, Zoology, Chemistry and Physics.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,589

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.
    Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

    I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


    *The one exception of course being PPE.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited September 11

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    It makes one misstep.

    " Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

    Which ignores the 12%/4m people who voted UKIP at the GE and who unambiguously wanted the UK to leave the EU, wanted a referendum to have the opportunity to express their wishes, and had been effectively disenfranchised prior to the referendum announcement.

    Now of course this was otherwise also electoral planning by Dave but that is a whole slug of the electorate who were given a voice. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,904

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.
    Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

    I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


    *The one exception of course being PPE.
    TBH, not sure I agree. The IB seems pretty thorough.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    Roger said:

    OT. What's happened to John McDonnell? He's morphed from avuncular great uncle to something quite creepy.

    Must be mixing with his old union buddies.....

    Roger you old dog you there's nothing wrong with Macca. He is just being Macca.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Roger, same as he ever was.

    Tennis: umpires are reportedly considering refusing to officiate at Serena Williams' matches. Lack of support from the WTA is thought to be a prime cause.

    Quite agree. Also feel a lot of sympathy for Naomi Osaka.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,009
    edited September 11

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    It's unusually poor for Rafael Behr, obviously arguing backwards from a personal position (some parts of which are well made, other parts of which are articles of faith) and as a result hopelessly muddled. He's happy to treat an anecdote from a single participant in a focus group as gospel, while brushing aside the polling he mentions showing rising support for a second referendum and the small but growing lead for Remain in favour of a separate poll with a seriously leading question.

    In any case, boredom with Brexit is unlikely to make it go away. Whether the public like it or not (newsflash: they don't), they're going to have to keep thinking about it for years to come. The months ahead are only going to intensify that.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536
    TOPPING said:

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    It makes one misstep.

    " Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

    Which ignores the 12%/4m people who voted UKIP at the GE and who unambiguously wanted the UK to leave the EU, wanted a referendum to have the opportunity to express their wishes, and had been effectively disenfranchised prior to the referendum announcement.

    Now of course this was otherwise also electoral planning by Dave but that is a whole slug of the electorate who were given a voice. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.
    Well you can argue all day on this, to me Dave simply was bad at party management, a lot of the UKIP vote would have stayed blue if hed been better at it. Either way Brexit is a Cameron failure and ultimately what he will be remembered for.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,123

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    ... until their job moves to the EU.
    thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
    Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens.
    Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited September 11

    TOPPING said:

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    It makes one misstep.

    " Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

    Which ignores the 12%/4m people who voted UKIP at the GE and who unambiguously wanted the UK to leave the EU, wanted a referendum to have the opportunity to express their wishes, and had been effectively disenfranchised prior to the referendum announcement.

    Now of course this was otherwise also electoral planning by Dave but that is a whole slug of the electorate who were given a voice. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.
    Well you can argue all day on this, to me Dave simply was bad at party management, a lot of the UKIP vote would have stayed blue if hed been better at it. Either way Brexit is a Cameron failure and ultimately what he will be remembered for.
    Nah - your visceral hatred dislike of politicians is, as it always seems to be, clouding your judgement. 4m people voted UKIP, the most successful single issue pressure group evah. They expressly wanted the UK to leave the EU and it was entirely legitimate for a political leader to include their demands in any manifesto. Much better than Ed or Polly dismissing their concerns as those of the uninformed and misguided*.

    *of course they were and are uninformed and misguided but that doesn't mean they should be denied a political voice.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,492

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    Good find and share Nick - that’s a great article. Even if Remainers get their second referendum, it’s impossible to predict which arguments wouls resonate with the public. I’m pretty sure that the importance of cross-border supply chains wouldn’t figure too highly.

    Does boredom with Brexit make a deal/no deal referendum more sensible for Theresa May?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

    If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    ... until their job moves to the EU.
    thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
    Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens.
    Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.
    oh dont be silly

    multi nats have been closing UK facilities for years because were the cheapest place to sack workers - no social plan, few legal problems cheap redundancy. There are loads of examples.

    The set up in the EU argument died on the accession of the Visegrad 4, suddenly we were no llonger the cheapest labour in town and the UK didnt have the social protections of mainland Europe. As a result it has been attrective for multinats to sell in the UK but move operations to lower cost countries or lower tax regimes.

    UK workers have been watching their jobs go offshore for the last 20 years

  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,492

    Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

    If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

    That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Blue, doubt we'll get a deal/no deal referendum. It's just an invitation to kick the government, and both the pro-EU and anti-EU sides could easily vote against, as well as anti-Conservatives.

    Chequers has critics from both sides of the spectrum.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    ... until their job moves to the EU.
    thats been happening for years and nobody gave a toss
    Many foreign companies set up in the UK because we were part of the EU. Those are the ones who are already moving to other EU countries and we will see more of that depending on what finally happens.
    Your answer was a non-answer, totally fact-free.
    oh dont be silly

    multi nats have been closing UK facilities for years because were the cheapest place to sack workers - no social plan, few legal problems cheap redundancy. There are loads of examples.

    The set up in the EU argument died on the accession of the Visegrad 4, suddenly we were no llonger the cheapest labour in town and the UK didnt have the social protections of mainland Europe. As a result it has been attrective for multinats to sell in the UK but move operations to lower cost countries or lower tax regimes.

    UK workers have been watching their jobs go offshore for the last 20 years

    Companies have also been slowly offshoring their back offices and support services such as call centres, although they are slowly coming back as the true costs of this become more obvious. Ask British Airways how outsourcing their IT department to Tata in India is going at the moment...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188
    Raikkonen out at Ferrari.... and to drive for Sauber next year.
  • Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

    If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

    That would be a spoiled ballot paper from me with those 2 options. (not something i've ever done before)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    "Few see Brexit as an imminent personal threat. It is either something settled in the past or whose meaning will be revealed in the far future."
    good article

    a reminder just how much Brexit bores the wider public
    It makes one misstep.

    " Their good fortune was to find in David Cameron a malleable prime minister who could be pressed into calling a referendum on a question few voters had ever thought to ask themselves."

    Which ignores the 12%/4m people who v. As such, one can't argue with the decision to offer a referendum.
    Well you can argue all day on this, to m remembered for.
    Nah - your visceral hatred dislike of and misguided*.

    *of course they were and are uninformed and misguided but that doesn't mean they should be denied a political voice.
    visceral hatred - no.

    disappointment in the current crop- yes

    4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,188

    Hmm, I'm not sure that a Trump voter would be convinced by the counter-video - he'd assume that the response was to a question about the flag-burning and say "He spouts a lot of stuff in between but in the end he says he approves of it", and at a gut level that would turn off a lot of US voters no matter what.

    BTW, a really good article on the political impact of boredom with Brexit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/remainers-voters-brexiters

    It's unusually poor for Rafael Behr, obviously arguing backwards from a personal position (some parts of which are well made, other parts of which are articles of faith) and as a result hopelessly muddled. He's happy to treat an anecdote from a single participant in a focus group as gospel, while brushing aside the polling he mentions showing rising support for a second referendum and the small but growing lead for Remain in favour of a separate poll with a seriously leading question.

    In any case, boredom with Brexit is unlikely to make it go away. Whether the public like it or not (newsflash: they don't), they're going to have to keep thinking about it for years to come. The months ahead are only going to intensify that.
    Quite.
    People were/are pretty bored with austerity (as was also the case in the post-war years, of course). That hardly removed its salience as a political issue.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    RoyalBlue said:

    Mr. Blue, the nature of any second referendum would largely be down to the actual options available. The best hope for Remain is for the choices to be Remain, or May's Capitulation Deal, because it'll depress Leave turnout.

    If it's Remain versus Leave, that'll come across as insulting the electorate by implying they got it wrong last time and have another chance to get it right by agreeing with the political class.

    That’s why I said deal/no deal. There will be no second referendum with Remain as an option while May is PM.
    Yes, the only conceivable option for a referendum proposed by the government would be the “Noel Edmonds” choice. It’s a very dangerous idea though, as with the first referendum there’s a temptation to vote to kick the government rather than look at the issue in hand.

    IMO what’s more likely is that the same question ends up being voted on in Parliament at the last possible moment, which sees it carried by a landslide as no-one wants to be responsible for the crash out.

    @AlastairMeeks reckons the chances of a referendum or election before Brexit are as short as one in six, I think it’s a lot longer than that as too many things need to happen sequentially to bring about either scenario. He does have a good track record of getting these things right though, much better than I do.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748
    Nigelb said:

    Raikkonen out at Ferrari.... and to drive for Sauber next year.

    Swap with Leclerc. Not sure Seb will be too happy about that, the kid’s damn quick.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Pubgoer, which option would lead to a spoiled ballot for you?

    Mr. B, bit of a shame. Surprised Raikkonen's hanging around, to be honest.

    Also, Sauber will have a world champion driver. McLaren will not.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited September 11

    visceral hatred - no.

    disappointment in the current crop- yes

    4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.

    Of course in these post-centre days that would be called conviction politics.

    He told them to sod off and yet they still hang around, like a bad smell. Where I campaigned for the Cons at GE2017 (a constituency which went from being a Lab/Con marginal to a 12,000 Lab majority), a popular refrain from previous Cons voters was about the UKIP-isation of the party.

    I, and I suspect many many others, would kill to get Dave back, right now. Who is your poster-boy/girl politician then? Like the ERG it's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to have an original thought.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?
  • Mr. Pubgoer, which option would lead to a spoiled ballot for you?

    Mr. B, bit of a shame. Surprised Raikkonen's hanging around, to be honest.

    Also, Sauber will have a world champion driver. McLaren will not.

    A choice of Remain or TM's capitualtion agreement in a notional 2nd referendum.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

    https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,009
    TOPPING said:

    ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

    https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

    Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,146

    Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

    I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


    *The one exception of course being PPE.

    PPE?

    I know health and safety is all the rage nowadays, but I can't see why we need degrees in Personal Protective Equipment, or why so many politicians would feel the need for such a degree.

    And when they do use such knowledge - e.g. Osborne wearing reflective jackets on building sites - they routinely get the piss taken out of them.

    I don't know why they bother. I'd have thought a degree involving economics, politics and even philosophy would have stood them in better stead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Pubgoer, cheers for the clarification.

    Aye, if I were seeking to reverse the decision last time, that'd be the option pairing I'd go for.

    It'd have, er, dramatic consequences for the political scene, though.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,754

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Who are the four percent who think Trump dishonest and untrustworthy, are not proud of him, yet approve of him and believe he cares about them ?

    Other than his kids ?

    I know Donald Trump is the most imposing sex maniac to lead a country since Napoleon III, or maybe even Augustus II of Poland, but I don't think he has quite managed to father 4% of the American electorate!
    Was Napoleon III notorious for his sexual activity? I seem to recall hearing that Augustus having lots of children by lots of ladies.
    Augustus acknowledged 345 children. (Edit - 346 if you include his one child by his wife.)

    Napoleon III

    And that was the quietest part of his sex life!
    It is strange how we skipped that rather remarkable aspect of his personality at school while spending a lot of time on his campaigns in Italy.
    You’re muddling up Napoleon Boneparte and Napoleon III (his great nephew?)

    IIRC Napoleon III just about managed to beat Mexico in a war
    No, Napoleon III played an important part in the unification of Italy defeating the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino (although the latter was arguably more of a draw).
    Wish I’d done a bit more history. As I was on the science side, my formal history learning stopped at Queen Anne. That was at a 50’s Grammar School.
    One of the advantages of a Scottish education was that you got to do a broader range of subjects. I did Highers in English, Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Latin and History in a single year. It was a nice balance but you can't get quite the same range today and the risk is that the new National 5 exams restrict choices even further.
    I have 3 nieces who went through the Scottish education system and I thought then that it seemed broader than mine had been. I’ve now a granddaughter who is starting a course which should lead the International Baccalaureate and while that seems harder, it seems much wider certainly than that which I did, or the course which her cousins, in the English system did or are doing.
    Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

    I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


    *The one exception of course being PPE.
    Doing a 4 year degree sets you up proper for a degree as well.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489

    TOPPING said:

    ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

    https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

    Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
    Less disgusting than you might think - I actually tried it over the weekend with a 1730 Palo Cortado sherry.

    Of course my senses by the time we got there might have been a bit numbed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,748

    Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?

    It’s certainly been reported in the past that he has influence in the decision and a clear “Number one” contract, but the red team are well known for saying little publicly about these things so we will probably never know the details.

    Huge for Leclerc though, he’s got the best opportunity since Hamilton a decade ago.

    Contrast with Vandoorne, who got stuck at an uncompetitive McLaren with a car built around Alonso, and has gone in three short years from future world champion to begging for a drive with Williams.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 45,760
    I think from scratch now laying the GOP in the Senate is the best bet for the Senate.

    They have 47 seats RCP consider safe with highly likely MS2. That gets to 48, which means Democrat Maj bets fall short (At least for Betfair exchange rules).

    There are 9 toss ups according to the polling. Perhaps NOM is the best bet, but it is a narrow target - and if the GOP get spanked everywhere does something odd happen in MS2 or Nebraska ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489

    Broad also means shallow. Spending 2 years focusing on maths, chemistry and physics at A level set me up for an engineering degree.

    I think we've got it right with 3 A levels and single subject degrees*


    *The one exception of course being PPE.

    PPE?

    I know health and safety is all the rage nowadays, but I can't see why we need degrees in Personal Protective Equipment, or why so many politicians would feel the need for such a degree.

    And when they do use such knowledge - e.g. Osborne wearing reflective jackets on building sites - they routinely get the piss taken out of them.

    I don't know why they bother. I'd have thought a degree involving economics, politics and even philosophy would have stood them in better stead.
    I think DS David Budd needs an advanced course in PPO.
  • eekeek Posts: 2,055

    Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?

    What happens if you help his team mate move to another team so removing Vettel's preferred option and leaving him with a choice of Leclerc or Ocon....

    The Sauber share scheme seems tailor made to ensure Kimmie moved..
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536
    TOPPING said:

    visceral hatred - no.

    disappointment in the current crop- yes

    4 million voted UKIP but not all of them voted reference Europe. For some it was simply a protest vote or a vote of disaffection following expenses, GFC, banking and other issues which made the Westminster bubble seem distant and out of touch. Daves term of office was spent on peripherals such as Leveson ( wheres that now ? ) or AV or pasty taxes. He didnt address issues which mattered to voters such as housing or infrastructure. Now maybe there was just no money so de facto he was pushed to window dressing but he wasnt very good at dressing windows and pissed off people needlessly. Telling Con supporters to sod off to UKIP and then complaining about the consequences when they did doesnt seem that clever to me.

    Of course in these post-centre days that would be called conviction politics.

    He told them to sod off and yet they still hang around, like a bad smell. Where I campaigned for the Cons at GE2017 (a constituency which went from being a Lab/Con marginal to a 12,000 Lab majority), a popular refrain from previous Cons voters was about the UKIP-isation of the party.

    I, and I suspect many many others, would kill to get Dave back, right now. Who is your poster-boy/girl politician then? Like the ERG it's easy to criticise, but much more difficult to have an original thought.
    currently theres no one who inspires,it's a bit like walking in to a restaurant and finding theres nothing you fancy on the menu. But politics is always a waiting game you get your good and your bad eras. I think one of the mistakes you partisan people can make is to immediately assume if theyre not with you theyre against you. The civil war in the Tory party I just find a turn off I am no more inclined to vote for Boris or JRM than I am for Osborne. When the tories get back to having someone who can manage a broad church they will be worth voting for.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,890

    Mr. Sandpit, I agree. Which reminds me: I thought Vettel had a veto over his team mate?

    It is possible Vettel thought that too. However thinking something to be so and the actuality can be related but quite different.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Mr. Eek, rising influence of major teams over minor ones is leading to some odd things. Ocon's reported struggle to find a seat next year (and maybe later this) is apparently down to being backed by Mercedes. They don't have a seat to give him and rivals don't want him because of the Silver Arrows connection.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 17,536
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ot - Tesco's wine by the case is closing down and as a result they have some stonking deals if you're that way minded. A 2012, and a 2013 Cru Bourgeois each for £5 a bottle is an absolute steal and if you don't like it you can use it to poach pears.

    https://tesco.com/wine/product/browse/default.aspx?N=8101+8132+4294967245

    Poached pear in red wine is a scandalous waste of both a good pear and red wine.
    Less disgusting than you might think - I actually tried it over the weekend with a 1730 Palo Cortado sherry.

    Of course my senses by the time we got there might have been a bit numbed.
    poached pear is excellent

    a point where we agree !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 44,918
    Signs PB might be a bit more middle class than the nation at large #37:
    dispute rages over whether poached pears are good or not.

    [Not like the common working man posts I make regarding the Second Punic War].
This discussion has been closed.