politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In a State: Assessing WH2020

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited April 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In a State: Assessing WH2020

I do have some fairly strong views on the election. In particular, I would advise you to cast aside state polling on Biden vs Trump and look instead at Trump’s favourability on a state-by-state basis.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    In Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and Ohio Trump got more votes in 2016 than Romney did in 2012
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    Good piece, agree with all of that. The other great thing about the Morning Consult numbers is that you have the same pollster polling all the states on an ongoing basis at the same time which makes them great to compare, I don't think anyone does anything similar with the head-to-heads?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    HYUFD said:

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and Ohio Trump got more votes in 2016 than Romney did in 2012

    Given the US voting age population increases every year, that's not a very high bar to clear.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,072
    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and Ohio Trump got more votes in 2016 than Romney did in 2012

    Given the US voting age population increases every year, that's not a very high bar to clear.
    Feeling optimistic about Covid-19 I take it.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,072
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and Ohio Trump got more votes in 2016 than Romney did in 2012

    Given the US voting age population increases every year, that's not a very high bar to clear.
    Feeling optimistic about Covid-19 I take it.
    Would need about 4 million deaths to reduce the voting age population. Though that's not much more than 1% of the US population.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249476028206063618?s=20
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249466523481255942?s=20
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249463708411142158?s=20
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    LostPassword said:

    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.

    Well, my rough guesstimate is that any positive approval will be a Trump hold, and anything worse than -7/-8 will be a Trump loss.

    This means Trump is set to lose Michigan and Wisconsin, which brings the Democrats to 258 EVs...

    The battleground states, then, are:

    Ohio (0)
    Pennsylvania (-1)
    Virginia (-5)
    Minnesota (-5)
    Iowa (-5)
    Maine (-6)

    What should worry the Dems is that - of those six states - half of them went Democrat in 2016.

    So it really is all to play for in 2020.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    edited April 2020
    LostPassword said:

    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.

    Obama was on 46% approval in March 2012, similar to Trump's approval now.

    Average approval for Presidents at this stage of their Presidency (ie the 13th quarter) is 53%.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.

    Obama was on 46% approval in March 2012, similar to Trump's approval now.

    Average approval for Presidents at this stage of their Presidency is 53%
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
    Is there any difference in their net approval at this stage?
  • Options
    AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited April 2020
    rcs1000 said:


    Is there any difference in their net approval at this stage?

    538 says Trump is -6.3 atm, versus Obama -0.1 on the same day.

    Trump's numbers seem in flux though. He was at a rock solid -10 for basically the last 3 years, almost completely immune to events. The covid/patriotic boost took him to -4 quickly, and it's faded back a bit.

    Probably depends on how much he can push recession effects beyond November?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,940
    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,940
    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    Damn lack.of edit button and lack eyes of a younger man.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,443
    edited April 2020
    test
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,001
    If all states move to postal voting, that matters more than March-April polling I think.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    EPG said:

    If all states move to postal voting, that matters more than March-April polling I think.

    All six swing states already have postal voting.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.

    Obama was on 46% approval in March 2012, similar to Trump's approval now.

    Average approval for Presidents at this stage of their Presidency (ie the 13th quarter) is 53%.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
    But Obama's reelection was not defined by a national crisis where 60%+ already thought the administration had bungled the response.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    Gabs3 said:

    HYUFD said:

    LostPassword said:

    Are there any comparable numbers for Obama 2012? I'm really not sure how to translate approval into election vote share, particularly in such a partisan environment.

    Obama was on 46% approval in March 2012, similar to Trump's approval now.

    Average approval for Presidents at this stage of their Presidency (ie the 13th quarter) is 53%.
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
    But Obama's reelection was not defined by a national crisis where 60%+ already thought the administration had bungled the response.
    They do not think Biden would have handled it much better than Trump, so there is no big advantage for Biden there
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249476028206063618?s=20
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Biden managed to survive debating Sanders head to head a couple of times, so I don't think Trump is going to massacre him in the debates.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Yup, it's a fun election because there are really strong arguments in each direction.

    I think I'd rate it about 65/35 in Biden's favour. Biden is reasonably popular and Trump terrible in all kinds of ways, it's as simple as that.

    However the other rule in American presidential elections is that the more *audacious* candidate always wins. And coro-chan provides a lot of opportunities for Trump to be audacious.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,976
    edmundintokyo said:

    And coro-chan provides a lot of opportunities for Trump to be audacious.


  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited April 2020
    Robert, should we not also consider a discount on Trump's current approval rating for the normal crisis boost the incumbent gets. And by all accounts, Trump is getting only a trivial crisis boost either in comparison to previous US Presidents in previous crises, or in relation to European leaders in the current COVID crisis.

    If we take the numbers you have cited, and discount them for the 'crisis boost', Trump is in dire straits pretty much across the board.

    Or is that wishful thinking?
  • Options
    DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 128
    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    [Snip]

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Well, that'd be win-win for him. Either it'd work, and he'd be a hero, or an insufficiently tested vaccine would kill enough people for him to claim that he and the anti-vaxxer fruitcakes were right all along.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    rcs1000 said:

    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Biden managed to survive debating Sanders head to head a couple of times, so I don't think Trump is going to massacre him in the debates.
    Maybe I should've added "and hope".

    You're right that Biden looked pretty sharp in the nomination debates, but he keeps going all over the place in interviews. Surely it's just a matter of time, especially with Trump knowing exactly what he wants to achieve? Trump's a pain to debate at the best of times.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    Georgia 1990, Sam Nunn won with 100% (!) Of the vote and 1.033m votes.
    Bill Clinton then won in 1992 with 1.008m votes.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    rkrkrk said:

    Georgia 1990, Sam Nunn won with 100% (!) Of the vote and 1.033m votes.
    Bill Clinton then won in 1992 with 1.008m votes.

    Sorry, but you have to compare to the PREVIOUS election (1988), where Bush carried Georgia with 1.08m votes.

    But nice catch, btw.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    In 1988, the Republicans (Bush Sr) won California, but lost Iowa and West Virginia.

    How times change.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    Biden's VP pick will be very interesting.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Georgia 1990, Sam Nunn won with 100% (!) Of the vote and 1.033m votes.
    Bill Clinton then won in 1992 with 1.008m votes.

    Sorry, but you have to compare to the PREVIOUS election (1988), where Bush carried Georgia with 1.08m votes.

    But nice catch, btw.
    Ah okay then.
    Montana Bill Clinton won in 92' with 154k votes (just 37%) while Conrad Burns won in 94' with 218k votes.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    Or GW Bush in 04' narrowly winning New Mexico with 377k votes, before Jeff Bingaman (D) holds the Senate seat in 06' with 394k votes.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    On topic, nice article.
    I thought state opinion polls had a good track record until the disaster of Trump 2016. If state polls discount those who stayed away in 2016, then you'd expect the Dems to outperform their polling. Given that Biden is polling ahead in all the states he needs to be, I think he's great value to win at over evens.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    Endillion said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Biden managed to survive debating Sanders head to head a couple of times, so I don't think Trump is going to massacre him in the debates.
    Maybe I should've added "and hope".

    You're right that Biden looked pretty sharp in the nomination debates, but he keeps going all over the place in interviews. Surely it's just a matter of time, especially with Trump knowing exactly what he wants to achieve? Trump's a pain to debate at the best of times.
    Is he all over the place in the whole interviews, or is he just having a few confused minutes that everybody shares on the twitters? (Genuine question, I haven't watched any full-length interviews.)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    You’ve got to laugh. It’s easier than crying.

    Coronavirus: Six people shot at California house party during lockdown
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52265989
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
  • Options
    AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464
    @MyBurningEars -- just wanted to say that I appreciated your common sense comments on the previous thread.

    --AS
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I would like to assure everyone I did not write this article.

    However I do endorse it.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    Morning all,

    Excellent header. Thanks @rcs1000
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    OldKingCole said:

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.

    Heavy cloud here in the E Mids.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Biden's VP pick will be very interesting.

    Indeed. When do you think we will hear? iirc it is normally very near the convention, but that has been put back to August.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    Alistair said:

    I would like to assure everyone I did not write this article.

    However I do endorse it.

    Does that mean you’re going to part pay for the Amazon voucher that rcs1000 is going to have to cough up?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    rottenborough said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.

    Heavy cloud here in the E Mids.
    Gentle sunlight and a fairly stiff breeze in Cannock.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    A while ago on here people were mentioning the Wisconsin-Foxconn deal as the kind of bold deal that only Republicans could do that Dems were incapable of and how it was going to secure Wisconsin for the GOP.
    https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/12/21217060/foxconn-wisconsin-innovation-centers-empty-buildings
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249476028206063618?s=20
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249466523481255942?s=20
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1249463708411142158?s=20

    Turnout is low though in US elections. If those who think he is doing an OK job turnout, and those who don't moan and stay home, he's fine....
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1249578274554023936
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    ydoethur said:

    rottenborough said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.

    Heavy cloud here in the E Mids.
    Gentle sunlight and a fairly stiff breeze in Cannock.
    Ditto for Devon.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    edited April 2020
    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
    Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,848


  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Your Moth du Jour - the Waved Umber.


  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,703
    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Yes, I wouldn't put that past Trump.
    Couldn't it be countered by Biden saying, 'Yes, we'll continue with that'. It wouldn't actually be tried before the election.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,571
    Enjoying nature. Removing mason bees (I think) from the hall last night and this morning a red kite was swooping just over our head. First time I had noticed it's song which is haunting.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    That Economist editor we discussed yesterday evening...

    https://twitter.com/chrislockwd/status/1249590097252663297
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    OldKingCole said:

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.

    Blue sky and Sun shining here but fresh at this time of the morning.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    rottenborough said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway!
    On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely.
    Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.

    Heavy cloud here in the E Mids.
    Yesterday sunny, 20 degrees. Today, overcast strong wind, 9 degrees wind chill 4 degrees.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,914
    CarlottaVance said:

    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
    Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
    It’s not unfair to ask the question of either the government or the opposition. But it’s the government answer that matters. Getting briefings is not the same as having round the clock access. It’s good that the subject is being discussed, though. That shows it is a pertinent issue to raise.

  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,382
    Thanks for the header.

    Remarkable success - 50+ comments and 80%+ on topic.

    Here in North Notts - very very grey. So it is reconnect the bathroom plumbing, then off for the bike ride, then out in the garden.
  • Options
    BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    edited April 2020
    rottenborough said:

    That Economist editor we discussed yesterday evening...

    https://twitter.com/chrislockwd/status/1249590097252663297

    image
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    CarlottaVance said:

    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
    Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
    It’s PMQs not LoOQs. It’s the job of the LoO is to ask questions, it’s the job of the PM to answer them. If they want to swap, you know what they have to do.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,382
    MarqueeMark said:

    Your Moth du Jour - the Waved Umber.


    I was planning to ask - are these your own piccies (gold star) or other archive ones?

    I'm suffering here as I have nothing except a phone full of data, and an iPad, and noo proper camera.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    On topic great thread header. Yesterday’s NYT description of the Trump administration’s fumbling of the crisis is clearly getting under his thin skin:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1249519742093864961?s=21
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    rcs1000 said:

    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Biden managed to survive debating Sanders head to head a couple of times, so I don't think Trump is going to massacre him in the debates.
    It is an issue of the rate of Biden's decline though. When she was around 80, the decline in my mum over 6 months was dramatic.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    CarlottaVance said:

    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
    Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
    At this moment - no. The government is firmly in power and an election is almost certainly four years away. Meanwhile the new opposition team has literally only just been installed.

    They should be asking questions and then deciding how to respond to the answers. Trying to make up policy on the hoof would be a sure way to disaster for them, and wouldn’t help the country at all.

    I’m no starry eyed fan of Labour as you know, but that was a silly question from the interviewer and Reeves was quite right not to answer.
  • Options
    TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Scott_xP said:



    There’s that “Uppity Uncle Tom” meme again.
    Drawn by a white man, posted here by a white teenage man.
  • Options
    Jam_MonkeyJam_Monkey Posts: 1
    Hi Robert,

    In the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon won Alaska with 37600 votes. In the 1970 midterm elections Ted Stevens won the Alaska senate race with 47908 votes. Please get in touch and I'll let you know where to send the voucher.

    Thanks,
    Craig
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    Jam_Monkey said:

    Hi Robert,

    In the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon won Alaska with 37600 votes. In the 1970 midterm elections Ted Stevens won the Alaska senate race with 47908 votes. Please get in touch and I'll let you know where to send the voucher.

    Thanks,
    Craig

    Welcome Craig.

    I wonder is @rcs1000 is now regretting his challenge...
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,571
    TGOHF666 said:

    Scott_xP said:



    There’s that “Uppity Uncle Tom” meme again.
    Drawn by a white man, posted here by a white teenage man.
    It's just a joke!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,306
    Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    The_Apocalypse said:

    So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.

    Where did you see that?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Apropos of my previous comment, I see that the Sun's headline is reported as "Bojo's Angels," and the accompanying pictures are of Jenny McGee and Luis Pitarma - who were initially referred to as "Jenny from New Zealand" and "Luis from Portugal".

    Taken, and edited from the BBC site. I wonder why the nurses names are now given and not, as initially, where they are from!

    Hmmmm.
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,763
    ydoethur said:

    Jam_Monkey said:

    Hi Robert,

    In the 1968 presidential election, Richard Nixon won Alaska with 37600 votes. In the 1970 midterm elections Ted Stevens won the Alaska senate race with 47908 votes. Please get in touch and I'll let you know where to send the voucher.

    Thanks,
    Craig

    Welcome Craig.

    I wonder is @rcs1000 is now regretting his challenge...
    I suspect he can afford it :wink:
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    MarqueeMark said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Endillion said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Isn't another significant factor that conventional wisdom, hitherto known as channel, was that Hilary to was a shio-in? That could have seriously depressed the anti-Trump anti-Clinton vote. This time around it us not so.

    This election is difficult to call.

    On the one hand, Presidents tend to get re-elected. Heading back to the war, it's almost been a steady series of eight years one party, eight years the next... with the only real exception being 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan.

    On the other, Trump is pretty unpopular. And he didn't really do *that* well in 2016. So he doesn't have much to fall back on. And the economy, which had been his strongest card, is now in free fall.

    Against that, Biden might not have the negatives Hillary had, but he's still a bloody awful candidate. Klobuchar - or even Buttigieg - would have been much stronger against Trump.

    I was going to write a piece about how I think Trump has a c. 70% chance of re-election... but the more I thought about it, the more I couldn't decide. It really is in the balance.
    Trump is already about 5 points behind Biden nationally, everyone knows Biden so it is hard to paint him in a new manner, the rally around bump has already evaporated, and there is another six months for the American public to get angry about deaths and jobs losses - for which they always blame the president. Biden will likely get well over 300 electoral votes. 400 is unlikely but not impossible if the bottom falls out for Trump.
    I reckon it'll be super easy for Trump to paint Biden as a washed-up, past-it, has-been with dementia. All he has to do is debate him a few times, and wait.

    The key is the trends between now and November. Biden is only going downwards. Trump is probably going downwards, unless he gets dealt some kind of a miracle in the form of a vaccine or breakthrough in virus treatment.

    Wouldn't put it past him to order the licensing and mass production of the most promising looking vaccine/treatment candidate in September, regardless of where it's at with testing. The election then becomes a choice between him (making hard choices that could save millions of American lives) and the establishment, represented by the Democrats (trying to stop him, with boring words like "safety" and "process" and "until we're sure that it won't kill more people than it saves").
    Biden managed to survive debating Sanders head to head a couple of times, so I don't think Trump is going to massacre him in the debates.
    It is an issue of the rate of Biden's decline though. When she was around 80, the decline in my mum over 6 months was dramatic.
    Harris 130/1.

    Down from 850/1 at beginning of March.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1249608636739059718
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Trump does seems to be struggling in the mid west where he had a series of key and very narrow wins last time out. Biden should of course double down on this by choosing a popular governor from the area or Klobuchar as his running mate and yet the indications are that he is still minded to go with Harris from that oh so marginal state of California.

    Normally the selection of your VP can only be a negative in that you can choose someone who is a drag on the ticket such as Palin or pretty neutral like, err, Biden. In this case, however, there has to be a question mark about how many months (weeks) Biden, if elected, is going to be mentally competent to run the country and people might just pay a little more attention as to who is next up.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1249398528906059776
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    DavidL said:

    Trump does seems to be struggling in the mid west where he had a series of key and very narrow wins last time out. Biden should of course double down on this by choosing a popular governor from the area or Klobuchar as his running mate and yet the indications are that he is still minded to go with Harris from that oh so marginal state of California.

    Normally the selection of your VP can only be a negative in that you can choose someone who is a drag on the ticket such as Palin or pretty neutral like, err, Biden. In this case, however, there has to be a question mark about how many months (weeks) Biden, if elected, is going to be mentally competent to run the country and people might just pay a little more attention as to who is next up.

    Yep. The Veep choice is going to be massive this year.
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,763
    Not good
    https://twitter.com/NIESRorg/status/1249609506708951040?s=20
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    edited April 2020
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1249398528906059776

    If other matters were not (appropriately) dominating the news, this would be:

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1249579248337268739?s=20

    What Mr Mason fails to observe is these "plotters" delivered a hung parliament. Two and a half years later the "True Corbynistas" delivered a Tory majority and the worst Labour result in over 80 years....
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,306
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1249398528906059776

    Looking at the report, it seems bad for Labour. Very bad.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    rkrkrk said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.

    Where did you see that?
    Twitter. Sky News reporter tweeted it:

    https://twitter.com/raynerskynews/status/1249053550665183237?s=21
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    MattW said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Your Moth du Jour - the Waved Umber.


    I was planning to ask - are these your own piccies (gold star) or other archive ones?

    I'm suffering here as I have nothing except a phone full of data, and an iPad, and noo proper camera.
    No, these are all my own pics that I post. My trusty little SONY Cyber-shot that I can operate one-handed (as I turn over the egg trays with the other, you filthy-minded little beggars) has unfortunately given up the ghost, so it is down to the i-phone for now. It has a decent macro function, but the SONY was outstanding.

    I take a record shot of each moth, in case I get questioned on my ID skills (inevitable...but I'm usually vindicated!). Not so much of an issue now, but get to June and July and on a good night you can have over a 1,000 happy snaps to file away for the end of year to compile your submission to the County Moth Recorder. I have a hard drive with literally tens of thousands of quite crap shots of moths. But in amongst, you get the odd one that is quite sharp. The real lucky ones are when you click just as the critter takes off - they make for a really nice action shot. Especially if it is a tiny micro, like this Bramble Shoot Moth:


  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1249398528906059776

    Looking at the report, it seems bad for Labour. Very bad.
    Where is it online? I haven't been able to find it.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?

    I don't think there's any scientific demonstrable evidence that either is effective.

    Typical Trump.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Emilie Oldknow is apparently the wife of Jon Ashworth.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    ydoethur said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......

    TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.

    Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.

    And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
    Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
    At this moment - no. The government is firmly in power and an election is almost certainly four years away. Meanwhile the new opposition team has literally only just been installed.

    They should be asking questions and then deciding how to respond to the answers. Trying to make up policy on the hoof would be a sure way to disaster for them, and wouldn’t help the country at all.

    I’m no starry eyed fan of Labour as you know, but that was a silly question from the interviewer and Reeves was quite right not to answer.
    Good to see the media is an equal opportunity asker of shite questions to politicians...
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    I would like to assure everyone I did not write this article.

    However I do endorse it.

    Does that mean you’re going to part pay for the Amazon voucher that rcs1000 is going to have to cough up?
    I will clap approvingly when RCS hands it over.
  • Options
    TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?

    Yes. HC helps absorb zinc.
    Good sources are meat. If you are a veggie/vegan - chick peas.
    Or tablets.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,570
    Uh oh.....

    WASHINGTON — President Trump publicly signaled his frustration on Sunday with Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the federal government’s top infectious disease expert, after the doctor said more lives could have been saved from the coronavirus if the country had been shut down earlier.

    Mr. Trump reposted a Twitter message that said “Time to #FireFauci” as he rejected criticism of his slow initial response to the pandemic that has now killed more than 22,000 people in the United States. The president privately has been irritated at times with Dr. Fauci, but the Twitter post was the most explicit he has been in letting that show publicly....

    ....Dr. Fauci has become a celebrated figure among much of the public, which trusts him far more than Mr. Trump, according to polls. A Quinnipiac University survey last week found that 78 percent of Americans approved of Dr. Fauci’s handling of the crisis compared with 46 percent who approved of the president’s response.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/trump-fauci-coronavirus.html
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    What is reported in regard how they treated Diane Abbot is pretty terrible as well:

    https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1249440328349818883?s=21

    You don’t have to agree with the politics of another human being to have sympathy with them. And you know, allegedly not that tell a journalist that they are crying in the bathroom.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    So Dr Fauci will be going soon then, judging by Trump’s twitter activities.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,108
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    I would like to assure everyone I did not write this article.

    However I do endorse it.

    Does that mean you’re going to part pay for the Amazon voucher that rcs1000 is going to have to cough up?
    I will clap approvingly when RCS hands it over.
    Tsk tsk, abdicating responsibility.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    The_Apocalypse said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.

    Where did you see that?
    Twitter. Sky News reporter tweeted it:

    https://twitter.com/raynerskynews/status/1249053550665183237?s=21
    Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true?
    Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,247
    edited April 2020
    Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.

    He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!

    Oh the irony

    This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TGOHF666 said:

    Scott_xP said:



    There’s that “Uppity Uncle Tom” meme again.
    Drawn by a white man, posted here by a white teenage man.
    There's the is it cos I is black card, played here by the genius who questioned the fuss made about CV when so many more people die by suicide. 17 a day.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    rkrkrk said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    rkrkrk said:

    The_Apocalypse said:

    So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.

    Where did you see that?
    Twitter. Sky News reporter tweeted it:

    https://twitter.com/raynerskynews/status/1249053550665183237?s=21
    Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true?
    Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
    Why is any of that explosive? I think it's great.

    The last thing Labour needs right now is unity. It needs a bloodbath. A total purge of the Loony Left. Like Kinnock began with that wonderful scene of Eric Heffer and Derek Hatton storming out of (the) Conference. That sent a clear signal to the British electorate that they were on the road back to electability.

    So that's what's needed. An almighty civil war culminating in the absolute and utter, unequivocal, expurgation and evisceration of Momentum and all its rancid cancerous evil.
This discussion has been closed.