I don't think that will make a big difference. On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote. That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.
More African American than average population in Florida yes. But the overwhelming majority of the felons are white lower income, less educated. And they'll probably break for the Trump. And voting rates of either group will be very low - so I think it's undecided who this will help.
So Trump's rhetoric on illegal immigrants being drug dealers, criminals, rapists etc will also chime with these guys on a 'they're taking our jobs' level?
I don't think that will make a big difference. On the other hand - Michigan has passed a swathe of changes making it easier to vote. That could be a big help to the Dems in 2020.
In Florida it will increase the number of voters by a million, and substantially African American.
More African American than average population in Florida yes. But the overwhelming majority of the felons are white lower income, less educated. And they'll probably break for the Trump. And voting rates of either group will be very low - so I think it's undecided who this will help.
So Trump's rhetoric on illegal immigrants being drug dealers, criminals, rapists etc will also chime with these guys on a 'they're taking our jobs' level?
Trump is bringing those jobs back to Americans.....
It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ? In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.
Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
Is that true in Florida? In most States Felons can already vote.
It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ? In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.
Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
Is that true in Florida? In most States Felons can already vote.
Manchester City set up a secret scheme named “Project Longbow” to overcome Uefa’s financial fair play rules, which appears to have wiped up to £40 million off the club’s wage bill, according to new leaks. Documents obtained by the German magazine Der Spiegel seem to show that City used the scheme to conceal payments from the club’s owners, the Abu Dhabi United Group.
The leaks have led Spanish league chiefs to call on Uefa to take action against City and to warn that they will complain to “EU competition authorities” if Uefa fails to act.
The scheme was named after the weapon that the English used to beat the French at Agincourt and appears to have been related to City defending themselves against Michel Platini, at the time Uefa’s French president and the architect of financial fair play (FFP).
That argument cuts both ways and, to mix metaphors, now the boot is on the other foot.
Couple that to demographics working against the Republicans, and the future does not look very bright for them, absent a sharp change in direction.
It was on a programme about the Democrats and I thought it interesting because it raised a question about the extent to which one can - or should - seek to entrench values or policies which may not be universally shared or particularly popular in laws or constitutions rather than or as well as seeking popular support for them. It’s a question which applies to all sorts of regimes on all sides of the political divide and there are no easy answers.
I am wary of arguments which say that demographics mean the extinction of a point of view or party. History - even recent history - in many parts of the world shows that to be a self-comforting delusion.
It is an interesting question - the entrenchment of values is, of course, inherent in the US Constitution, and in a divided polity, that is highly unlikely to be changed by constitutional amendment in the foreseeable future. What is notable now is that a Senate majority representing a marked minority of the electorate is imposing and/or entrenching those values.
I wouldn't for a moment claim that the conservative POV is about to be extinguished - rather that the electoral deck is going to be increasingly stacked against the currently constituted Republican Party, and reversing that would require actions not possible while they remain the party of Trump.
Beto O'Rourke At this point CNN compared to the BBC/Sky at this point Pelosi (for now) My beer money
Losers Whoever has to decide a Dem strategy for 2020 538 NYT's precincts reporting counter
PB was bloody hilarious when 538's house predictions started to swing wildly. Some posters were calling the House for GOP and Trump's 2020 re-election straight away 😂.
Beto O'Rourke At this point CNN compared to the BBC/Sky at this point Pelosi (for now) My beer money
Losers Whoever has to decide a Dem strategy for 2020 538 NYT's precincts reporting counter
PB was bloody hilarious when 538's house predictions started to swing wildly. Some posters were calling the House for GOP and Trump's 2020 re-election straight away 😂.
THe BF House Market tracked well ahead of where it should be. I for example backed the Dems at about 2.30AM our time at 1.4, when (in hindsight) they should have been 1.11
The GOP did do well in the Senate but then the vast majority of the seats up were Democratic held anyway and that will not be the case in 2020
Depending on the final results in AZ and MT, and assuming the Dems win NV, it looks as though the Republicans are going to end up with 53 or 54 seats, so in 2020 the Democrats are going to need a net gain of at least three and probably more.
However, most of the Republican seats coming up in 2020 are out of reach for the Dems. Their best chances are probably in Maine (Susan Collins) and Colorado (Cory Gardner), but against that they'll be defending Alabama (Doug Jones). Making the net gains they need looks really tough.
It looks good for Arizona, Montana less certain if GOP get's those 2 I think it is a decent night overall for Trump. A score draw in a tough away game.
I'd agree with that assessment. GOP did better than expectations, which is always a good thing for your narrative. Trump's big 2020 problem remains however. He can't win it by only appealing to his base, particularly if marginally won Rust Belt states go backwards. He has to convert voters that went Hilary last time. There's little sign of that so far.
Did they? They picked up an unexpected Senate seat but otherwise it looks like Dems are going to get the midpoint of their seat spread and have swept local races picking up crucial governors houses and breaking GOP local super majorities.
I think so they should now have the Senate locked for 2020, Tester looks like losing which would be another bonus. It was always difficult for the GOP in the house with so many new candidates, against those out of power who can tailor the message to the seat. GOP have done ok. At the start of this year they wouldn't have thought these results possible.
It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ? In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.
Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
Is that true in Florida? In most States Felons can already vote.
Beto O'Rourke At this point CNN compared to the BBC/Sky at this point Pelosi (for now) My beer money
Losers Whoever has to decide a Dem strategy for 2020 538 NYT's precincts reporting counter
PB was bloody hilarious when 538's house predictions started to swing wildly. Some posters were calling the House for GOP and Trump's 2020 re-election straight away 😂.
Balls deep on Tester at the moment - hairy ride xD. Also ignore my election night comments, I'm invariably wrong lol
It's a policy which is justified on its own merits - but I'm not sure how you calculate it helps Trump ? In any event, one thing that last night's results demonstrated is that taking past turnout figures as a guide to future turnout is not a sensible basis on which to bet.
Whilst African-Americans and other minorities have disproportionately high felony records, in pure numbers the demographic with the most, absolute, felony records are white people, and most of them have no formal higher education, and are poor, which is a key Trump demographic.
Is that true in Florida? In most States Felons can already vote.
Hasn't it always been understood that IF both the EU and the UK needed to extend A50 a few days or weeks to conclude a final agreement, they could and would do so.
I imagine that could be challenged in a court by someone who would claim the two year period is fixed and has to be adhered to.
Maybe but even if A50 officially ended without an agreement, IF there was a strong likelihood of an agreement and it was simply awaiting full ratification I imagine everyone would simply wait until that process was completed if it were a matter of days.
The two year period only kicks in if there *hasn't* been an agreement to extend it (or if there hasn't been an agreement for the member state to leave before that moment:
Article 50(3):
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
There can be no doubt that a unanimous decision to extend the A50 period is legal under European law. There might be a better argument that it's no legal under UK law, with the Withdrawal Act defining March 29 as Brexit Day, but I expect the government would argue that the Henry VIII clauses in the Act allow the minister to amend that date, and I think they'd be right to do so.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
If lawyers didn't take on any cases wouldn't that mean that the profession would cease to exist?
Negligence claims are an occupational hazard. Thought crime is usually thought of as pretty low-risk. It's not easy to sue your lawyer once you're behind bars.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
Balls deep on Tester at the moment - hairy ride xD. Also ignore my election night comments, I'm invariably wrong lol
Betfair looks to be with you. Not sure why you can get 2/1 on the Republican when he's leading, but perhaps others have done the spadework and looked at which areas are still to report.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
Agree on all bar (5). If the House puts the kibosh on Trump's plans, it gives him his platform for 2020 - and he will just *love* running against Nancy Pelosi-by-proxy, who has even worse approval ratings than him.
In truth, he hasn't done a huge amount via Congress anyway. The House might cause trouble with committee hearings and subpoenas and blocking legislation but it can do little to impede Executive orders and little to stop presidential nominations.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
Re #5 - I think the opposite, like the negative media, I think it fires him up and also gives him a rallying point to bang about how the dems stopping his glorious revolution.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
If you had of course taken their first mid term results as a guide Obama, Reagan and Clinton would have been one term Presidents. The Democrats won the popular vote by 12% in 1982 - two years later Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in the electoral college. The Dems lost the popular vote by 7% in 2010, lost 63 House seats and 6 in the Senate. Two years later Obama won easily.
The Dems did ok on Tuesday - but still lost ground in the Senate which looks likely to remain Republican in 2020 too looking at the seats up for grabs. So perhaps some perspective is needed. In some ways a Democratic House will suit the combative Trump and he can still get his judges through the Senate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health is failing and in one or two of her recent appearances suggests she should be in a nursing home not the Supreme court.
As for the popular vote we forget that if you exclude California Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by nearly 1.5 million. You can only of course win that state's 55 electoral votes once - just 0.3 per cent of the 'wasted' Clinton votes in California could have won her Michigan.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46109281
Beto O'Rourke
At this point CNN compared to the BBC/Sky at this point
Pelosi (for now)
My beer money
Losers
Whoever has to decide a Dem strategy for 2020
538
NYT's precincts reporting counter
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/11/04/tuesday-may-see-the-biggest-change-to-the-electoral-process-in-florida-since-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965/
The leaks have led Spanish league chiefs to call on Uefa to take action against City and to warn that they will complain to “EU competition authorities” if Uefa fails to act.
The scheme was named after the weapon that the English used to beat the French at Agincourt and appears to have been related to City defending themselves against Michel Platini, at the time Uefa’s French president and the architect of financial fair play (FFP).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/manchester-city-hid-40m-off-wage-bill-lnhc90fcn
What is notable now is that a Senate majority representing a marked minority of the electorate is imposing and/or entrenching those values.
I wouldn't for a moment claim that the conservative POV is about to be extinguished - rather that the electoral deck is going to be increasingly stacked against the currently constituted Republican Party, and reversing that would require actions not possible while they remain the party of Trump.
https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287
The overlap with Jim Crow, while not complete, is certainly there, and not entirely co-incidental...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_Era
Article 50(3):
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
There can be no doubt that a unanimous decision to extend the A50 period is legal under European law. There might be a better argument that it's no legal under UK law, with the Withdrawal Act defining March 29 as Brexit Day, but I expect the government would argue that the Henry VIII clauses in the Act allow the minister to amend that date, and I think they'd be right to do so.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
In truth, he hasn't done a huge amount via Congress anyway. The House might cause trouble with committee hearings and subpoenas and blocking legislation but it can do little to impede Executive orders and little to stop presidential nominations.
That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Edit: Ah you meant NV.
NEW THREAD
The pollsters did really well last night (I for one was sceptical that they would). That should be noted.
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
The Dems did ok on Tuesday - but still lost ground in the Senate which looks likely to remain Republican in 2020 too looking at the seats up for grabs. So perhaps some perspective is needed. In some ways a Democratic House will suit the combative Trump and he can still get his judges through the Senate. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health is failing and in one or two of her recent appearances suggests she should be in a nursing home not the Supreme court.
As for the popular vote we forget that if you exclude California Trump won the popular vote in the other 49 states by nearly 1.5 million. You can only of course win that state's 55 electoral votes once - just 0.3 per cent of the 'wasted' Clinton votes in California could have won her Michigan.
How might O'Rourke have done in the Governor's race where the Republican won by 14%?